You are on page 1of 59

3.2.

1 Courtyard houses (CH)


Early civilisations
The courtyard house developed as both a rural and urban prototype. The adoption of the
rural courtyard compounds in the permanent settlements was logical, for the basic living
concept of the internal court worked well within the geographically diverse city contexts.
Schoenauer argues that four types of factors contributed to the ready acceptance of the
courtyard house type in the ancient settlements for thousand years: psychosocial
(privacy/property), economic (density/land value), climatic (sun/wind protection), and
religious (internal paradise/sky spiritual access).130

Locuința cu curte interioară s-a dezvoltat atât ca prototip rural, cât și urban. Adoptarea
componentelor locuinței rurale în așezările urbane a fost logică datorită faptului că
conceptul de bază al curții interioare a funcționat bine în contextele geografice diverse ale
orașelor. Schoenauer susține că patru tipuri de factori au contribuit la acceptarea rapidă a
tipologiei locuinței cu curte interioară în așezările antice de-a lungul a mii de ani: psihosocial
(intimitate / proprietate), economic (densitate / valoare teren), climatic (protecție solară /
eoliană) și religios (paradis intern / deschiderea spre cer) .130

The Sumerian Civilisation arose around 3500 BC as a result of the agglomeration of many
agricultural communities in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Between 3000 BC
and 2700 BC, villagers began a large migration towards larger nuclei, creating cities. The city-
states of Mesopotamia, such as Babylon and Ur, had an assembly of religious elders with the
authority to nominate a city ruler with the powers of a king. In its period of prosperity
(ca.2100 BC), Ur had a gross density of 320 persons per hectare (ppha), and its typical urban
dwelling had rooms around a central court131 (Fig.2).
The Nile Valley Civilisation began around 3600 BC when the existent nomes(provinces)
coupled animal domestication with crop storage. Menes unified the settlements along the
valley (ca.3100 BC), building Memphis to function as the capital of his new kingdom. From
this time, housing in Egypt grew along alluvium

land, usually around palaces/temples and funerary buildings. The rooms had
different ceiling heights for different seasons (for example, low ceilings for the
winter). Wind was captured and directed through a system that included windows,
domes and roofs. Towns such as Kahun (ca.2650 BC) were built to accommodate
the transient houses and services required for the construction of the pyramids.
Housing was then organised in a gridiron, and houses had small yards in front of the
entrance door and at the back132 (Fig.3).
The Indus Valley Civilisation (Harappan Civilisation) flourished from ca.2150
BC; however, it came to an abrupt end in ca.1750 BC as a result of either natural
events (such as extreme flood or drought) or human actions (such as Aryan
invasions).133 Even though archaeologists have discovered more than one hundred
Indus settlements since 1920, historians do not have a detailed knowledge about
the origins of this civilisation, and still have not deciphered the Indus script. To date,
the largest cities found are Harappa, Kalibangan and Mohenjo-Daro. The Indus
Valley Civilisation was the first ancient civilisation to build a city grid using straight
streets. However, the gridiron was not yet used as a physical instrument to build
the city as a whole, but only to build a specific area of the city: the workers' camp.
Courtyard houses are clearly identified in the excavation plans of Mohenjo-Daro134
(Fig.4).
Clay seals found in the above cities are evidence of commercial relations
among their civilisation.135 It is possible that these relations contributed to the

dissemination of courtyard house typologies in ancient times. The courtyard houses


in the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Indus rivers civilisations were an average size of
around 50m2. Their forms were squared, embracing the court, or elongated, placing
the courts in the entrance and/or at the end of the house (Figs. 5 and 6). Even
though Sumerian and Egyptian workers received social respect and humane
treatment136, the ancient “civilisations did not provide the political, governmental,
social, and – most important – psychological conditions which would create the
need for gathering places.”137 These conditions were introduced with the later
Greek concept that the individual and the state could be separated, and have
differentiated spatial settings for the conduct of their affairs. The square (plaza)
then appeared as a special gathering place for the people.
Classical civilisations
While courtyard houses have been uncovered in the archaeological
excavations (1901-2009) at Knossos and Gournia on Crete (2000 BC), it was not until
the Hellenic period (900 BC - 400 BC) that courtyards became commonplace in
Greek cities. The houses at the beginning of this period consisted of a single room,
occasionally with an attached porch. Domestic activities would take place inside the
room or in its adjacent outside spaces. In the middle of the eighth century, these
households started turning inwards, with the addition of two or three rooms
around a private outdoor space that was not yet completely enclosed. It is possible
that this sudden change was caused by a “defined conception of the private sphere
and a desire to assert control over the space used by the household, while the
increased provision of space for storage may reflect a greater emphasis on the ideal
of self-sufficiency as a way of avoiding dependence”138 (Fig.7).
Pericles’ governance (461 BC-429 BC) provided the Greek civilisation with the
necessary stability to bring the Hellenic Age to a higher intellectual level in the fifth
century BC. Science and method “had taken their place with statesmanship, poetry
and philosophy in moulding Hellenic life in the direction of systematization”.139
Hippodamus of Miletus was commissioned by Pericles to design the layout of
Piraeus, the new Athens port-town, launching a career that merits the title 'father
of town planning'.140 The gridiron, which he used in all his city plans, is testament to
the influence of his master, the geometrician Pythagoras. Public spaces were
designed to be spacious and splendid, and intended to facilitate daily interaction,
conversations and exchange of ideas among large numbers of people. The house
was designed for the evening, for family dining and for drinking parties
(symposium). According to Socrates (469 BC-399 BC), the perfect house ought to be
cool in summer and warm in winter, with an appropriate size to safely keep the
owners’ essential possessions.
By the fifth century BC, all courtyards were hidden behind walls with access
from the street through a single entrance sometimes screened by a wall (herkos) to
provide privacy. The façades displayed only small, high windows used mainly for
cross-ventilation purposes, but did not have any kind of decoration to indicate the
wealth of the owner; this could be seen as a collective demonstration of accordance
with the emergent ethos of egalitarianism in Greek city-states (polis; pl. poleis).141 In
the polis, “the Platonic-Aristotelian principle of the subordination of the personal
interest to the public good was the true wisdom”.142
A good example of housing conforming to this egalitarian principle is
Olynthus. Fifty years after its destruction by the Persians (in 479 BC), its inhabitants
used a gridiron plan to rebuild the city. City blocks measured about 91.5x36.5m,
making two rows of five dwellings. “The lighting courtyard of the houses was
planned on the south side with a pillared opening admitting sunshine at the north
end. The plans show the wide variations of arrangement made possible within the
unit area of each house, so that no two are exactly alike”143 (Fig.8).
One of the innovative features of the polis was related to its control of growth
and expansion. After a city reached a certain size, population growth was restricted
and a new polis was established within a determined distance. Although this policy
was focused on the internal unity and coherence of the polis, there was also the
more practical requirement of maintaining an ecological balance between the city's
population and the food production in surrounding rural areas. As the fertility of
Greek soil was underprivileged, and the area of political influence of the poleis
began to overlap, the newest one needed to be sited in territories further afield. As
a consequence, Greek settlers colonised large areas on the shores of the Aegean
Sea, as well as on the coastal areas of Southern Italy (Magna Græcia).144
Prevailing through time as the most important of the Greek city-states, Athens
was the source of new ideas. However, while its public buildings were splendid, its
housing construction growth was chaotic, tracking its topographic lines and infilling
the building gaps caused by war damage without any planning. It is not known
when detached columns were introduced into Greek architecture as a way of
providing a covered area around the courtyards. The peristyle, “a range of columns
surrounding a building or open court”145, appears in the excavations of some
Athens' houses dating from the fifth-fourth century BC; in some cases, there was a
minimal use of columns in compact spaces (Figs. 9 and 10). With the amalgamation
of the Greek and Roman cultures – which was made possible by the Greek colonies
in south-western Italy – one can speculate that the peristyle had been either a
development of the Roman atrium, facilitating the construction of larger
courtyards, or an upgrade of the oriental courtyard.
Either by martial coercion or by diplomatic involvement, Philip II of Macedon
brought almost all of mainland Greek city-states under a Macedonian hegemony.
This legacy allowed his son, Alexander the Great (356 BC-323 BC), to conquer new
ventilated sitting room (Fig.15).155 The cultures of ancient Greece, Rome and
Byzantium were influenced by the early Iranian garden tradition; this, in turn, might
well have been influenced by the gardens of Mesopotamia.
Arab civilisation
Lasting from the sixth to the seventh century AD, the Byzantine-Sassanid
conflict exhausted both empires, and facilitated the sudden emergence and
expansion of the Arab conquests. The conquerors maintained the fortification walls
and public baths (hammans); however, the Islamic way of life called for changes in
public spaces. The mosque (jami') – as the central city space – incorporated judicial,
educational and recreational functions in addition to its religious role, and took over
the agora location in almost all Hellenic cities. Colonnaded streets closer to the
mosques became bazaar streets (suq), and basilicas developed into market halls for
more precious goods (qaysariyyah or khan). The latter, being part of the suq
precinct, was utilised as “caravansarai-like storehouses with lodgings in the upper
level for merchants”.156
In the Umayyad Caliphate,157 the architectural/urban elements were
redefined according to the political/religious customs of the Islamic culture, and
public institutions and houses were designed around an open central court.
In fact, by its confined nature the courtyard is a feasible urban form, often small
and unpretentious, lending itself to high density. The Islamic garden and
courtyard share many characteristics and balance each other. Both reflect a
profound sense of place. The garden … expresses the concept of paradise, and it
is often symbolically divided in four parts … Courtyards are usually square, or
nearly so, and symbolize stability … In a garden, water is contained in tanks, and
its shape determined by channels, chutes and fountains; in a courtyard there is
more restraint and water is contained in a pool or trickled from a fountain.158
While the climatic similarity of all territories within the Arab empire gave
continuity to the ubiquitous use of the courtyard house, differences in house plans
resulted from the orthodoxy of the religious tradition, the geographical location and
the urban density. The Islamic urban house inherited from Mesopotamia and
Parthia, for example, saw separate areas for genders: the selamlik for male visitors
and the haramlik (harem) reserved for women and children. In small houses, the
former occupied the ground floor and the latter the upper floor, where trellised bay
windows facing the street allowed for ventilation and privacy; the latter was also
enhanced by a wall placed at the entrance of the house.
Islamic religious laws governed city building development, determining that
no individual could overlook a neighbour's property, nor could they “interfere
wilfully with a neighbor's right of access to his property, although immediate
neighbors, but traditionally he is not required to make allowances for through
traffic to ease accessibility from one neighborhood to another”.159 As a
consequence, the medieval Islamic city grew informally, creating irregular building
sites within a mazed network of streets (Fig.16).
Baghdad was an exception to this general procedure. Founded in AD 762 as
capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and strategically located to be part of the eastwest
caravan route, it established the centre of Islamic civilisation, becoming one of
the world's greatest cities of the time. It followed a circular design contained by
three concentric fortifications, with a large central area reserved for a mosque and
a palace.
The residential areas, established by the space between the second and third
wall, were divided into four equal sections by four vaulted streets dedicated to
retail, and connecting the four city gates with the public central space. Ring streets
bordered the city walls, and smaller radial streets were for traffic access (Fig.17).
Following the Parthian-Sassanid tradition, the city was located on the winding banks
of the Tigris River, facilitating the efficiency of the traditional wind-catchers utilised
for the natural ventilation of houses.
Ventilation was an essential consideration in determining the way that
traditional Baghdad house compartments were utilised; this utilisation varied
according to the seasons of the year and the daily temperatures. House divisions
had multifunctional uses, and scarce furniture was moved between rooms or from
the basement to the terrace, according to the need for thermal comfort 160 (Fig. 18).
In the city of Samarra, in the Abbasid era, the nineteenth-century palace contained
iwan,161 encircling walls, canals, pools and fountains, all within a formal framework
of esplanades and courtyards.
The Umayyad Caliphate expanded to Spain, Portugal, Southern France,
Turkey, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in the north, to Yemen and Oman in the south,
to Morocco in the west and to China and India in the east. It is relevant to
acknowledge the absence of courtyards in Europe after the fall of the Roman
Empire; this was because the houses needed to be compacted inside the medieval
fortified walls, and courtyards became a privilege of citadel palaces and Christian
monasteries. However, the housing concept in the southern regions of Spain and
Portugal did not follow the same fate. For more than 700 years, inspired by Muslim
technology and design, the al-Andalus162 rulers (AD 711-AD 1492) promoted the
construction of outstanding courtyard buildings, such as mosques and palaces with
elaborate gardens.163
Cordoba, well known for its flowering patios (courtyards), became the capital
of the al-Andalus territory under the rule of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba in
AD 716. With an estimated population of half a million people in the tenth and
eleventh centuries, it was one of the most important political, economic, financial
and cultural centres of the world. However, security issues may have been the
reason for the foundation (in AD 936) of the city of Madīnat al-Zahrā, sited 7km
west of Cordoba, in the foothills of Sierra Morena.164 Some 1200 years before the
construction of Canberra and Brasilia, ᷾Abd al-Raḥman III, the new Emir of Cordoba,
wanted to build an administrative city that would establish a prudent distance
between his court and the turmoil of the old capital.
Urban design, architecture and artisanship had a significant role during the
twenty-five years of construction of this new political and administrative capital
that aimed to emphasise all the grandeur of the al-Andalus, thus rivalling the
palatial city of Samarra (near Bagdad). Buried for over a thousand years, the city is
today being slowly re-built through archaeological work which, day by day,
uncovers more munya (courtyard villas)165 (Fig.19).
Other large towns of al-Andalus were Seville, Granada, Jaen, and the less
mentioned Madina Mayurqa (Palma) on the island of Majorca. The latter was
incorporated into the Roman Empire in 123 BC; it became part of the Emirate of
Cordoba in AD 902, and was one of the most extensive cities in twelfth century
Southern Europe.166 In contrast to the rectangular peristyle courtyards of the
kingdoms of Granada and Aragon, the courtyards in Palma lost part of their columns
in favour of more service rooms on the lower floor, the sound of the Islamic water
feature was replaced by a silent well, and decorative tiles were never used. A
transparent iron gate defined the limits of privacy, allowing for ventilation through
the zaguán and for the vision of the robust stairs connecting the courtyard with the
living spaces on the upper floor167 (Fig.20).
When the Arab Empire expanded to Anatolia (Turkey), another northern
frontier of the Umayyad Caliphate in AD 750, courtyard houses were already being
used there, having been previously introduced by the Hittites since the eighteenth
century BC.168 Also by that time, in India – the south-eastern frontier of the Muslim
Empire – the use of courtyard housing was already an old tradition. It had been
brought by the Hindus Valley Civilisation, continued in the Aryan invaders' rural
settlements, approved by the Parthian conquerors' housing concepts, and carried
on in dwelling models used in the cities founded during the Macedonian
occupation.

Hindu civilisation
The Islamic invaders brought to India the concept of the symmetric court as a
balanced, earthly paradise, introducing the use of water features and the control of
light and shadowing. They introduced cantilevered screen windows above the
streets, allowing for both permanent ventilation and visual access to the street from
inside. Like the Bagdad houses, the distribution of rooms permitted their
interchangeable functioning throughout the day, depending on the temperature of
the rooms (from the terrace to the ground floor) at a particular time.
A natural ventilation system similar to the ones used in ancient Yazd (Iran) and
Bagdad was also used in India. These airflow circuits initiated in the courtyards were
connected to wind ‘scoops’ placed on the roof to catch the wind and impel it down
a shaft. Randhawa provides a proficient explanation of the system:
The scoops' being on the roof at considerable height decreases the entry of dust
and water pots are kept in their air circuit for cooling. Often the windows in the
rooms open into the scoop shaft for ventilating, though at different heights for
maintaining privacy. At night, cool air comes down the courtyard and flushes the
air in the rooms. The high ceilings of the rooms aid in keeping them cool in
summer, as the angle subtended by the roof to the floor is less than that with a
lower ceiling. Also, high ceiling rooms have a greater volume of air which takes
more time in becoming stale, and thus manage with less aeration when outside
temperatures are in the extremes.169
The Hindu and Muslim courtyard house typologies had the same privacy aims,
using screen walls in the entrance and separating public and private spaces inside
the houses. One difference was the Hindu household value of social status, which
was manifested in the dwelling’s proximity to the city ruler's palace, and in its
external decoration. Yet, the traditional Indian House per se did not carry the most
importance; rather, its component—the courtyard (agan or uthan), where the
family spent most of their time—was highly significant. The rooms in the house
served mostly as storage and as shelter from the weather’s rigors.
Some features were common in all Hindu houses in accordance with the vastu
shastra principles concerning the positioning of the house and the distribution of
the rooms.170 Nevertheless, “the courtyard house form in India was not based on
blind conformity and there was tremendous innovation in the design of such
homes, known variously in different regions – haveli in northern India (where they
were prominent), nalukettu in Kerala, rajbari in Bengal and deori in Hyderabad”.171
Thus, given persistent ransacking by invaders coming from the north-west, the
inhabitants of northern India built large multi-courtyard haveli with high protective
characteristics, but without extensive external decoration (Fig.21). Less fortified was
the wooden structure of the one-floor nalukettu in the southern regions, where its
entrance was accessed by a raised veranda with lateral benches to accommodate
visitors, and the court's opening to the sky was sometimes limited to an impluvium
above a rainwater cistern, reminiscent of the Roman atrium (Fig.22).172
Indian culture, which spread throughout Java to Bali during the Majapahit
Empire (thirteenth to sixteenth century AD),173 has been central to determining the
rules for all Balinese building construction. The mountain houses in Bali, for
example, have been built with external walls and have been grouped around a
communal space. The seaward Balinese dwellings differ from these, however; their
pavilions are partially enclosed by screen walls and the few closed pavilions of the
compound are built only for the use of newly-weds and the patriarch. Additionally,
the layout, size, and proportions of all buildings forming the house compound are
ordered by a set of complex rules (asta kosala kosali), which include auspicious
orientation principles.174 The principal pavilion, the family temple, and the kitchen
have fixed functions according to their auspicious placement; nevertheless, the
compound attends to the basic principles of communalism, extended family
comfort and architectural flexibility.175
“The home, a living thing, must be harmonious with the body of the family
patriarch ... Before the traditional Balinese architect, the undagi, does anything
else, he takes various measurements from the body [primarily the fingers] of the
household. The most important measurements are those governing the
construction of the pillars, for it is their dimensions that will control the size of the
buildings.”176 The primary elements of a small compound have a central
rectangular courtyard framed by four pavilions, all positioned within a surrounding
wall where privacy is guaranteed by the appropriate height (above eye level) of
both the external wall and the screen wall (aling aling) in front of the main entrance
(Fig.23). Coincidentally, these are also the key elements of the Chinese courtyard
house.

Chinese civilisation
Chang’an (today's Xi'an), the capital of the Tang Empire – strategically
positioned as the starting point of the Silk Road and connected to the recently
completed Grand Canal network – was one of the largest cities of the world (along
with Constantinople and Baghdad), with a population of more than one million. 177
The walls were built immediately after the completion of the royal palace because
the ancient civilisation considered the city walls and the city as the same entity,
using the same name (cheng) for both. Walls were simply the dividers of the
contained element, hierarchically defining the limits of country, city, palace,
walled and gated wards is unknown, as its wooden architecture did not survive the
devastation in AD 904. Even though no single style defines the Chinese house, it is possible
that the wards were filled by a
fair proportion of courtyard houses, a type (of more than twenty varieties) that can
be traced back to China for three thousand years.179
In the Qinling region on the Yellow River Valley, once the cradle of the Chinese
civilisation, a rectangular hole was excavated below ground level, and the doors and
windows of accompanying rooms and storage spaces opened into it (Fig.24). Cool in
the summer and warm in the winter, these underground dwellings have been an
example of sustainability since the Iron Age and are still housing more than thirty
million people.180 It is possible that the origin of these natural dwellings can be
traced further back to Neolithic settlements, such as the ones excavated in Banpo
(east of Xi'an) where the floor of the houses were a meter below the ground.181
These troglodyte cellular structures were inconspicuous in the landscape and
so provided relative protection against human threats (Fig.25). Being an uncovered
void, their main function was to provide light and ventilation to their adjacent cave
openings. Measuring some 20 m² to 30m², the floors of these open spaces were
carved 6-7m below the rustic soil around them.182 Two important elements inside
these courtyards were the well, to capture the rainwater, and the tree, to provide
shade in the summer. The entrance was a gateway accessed by stairs or a ramp
(Fig.26).
The ancient Chinese architectural system categorized six structural types of
buildings: house, temple, palace, city, tomb and garden. Writings, although a nonstructural
element, would also be considered a category when describing and
illustrating rules and processes of building construction (Fig.27). All the categories
applied the ancient precepts of fengshui (wind and water) which, as did the vastu
shastra in India and the asta kosala kosali in Bali, establishes rules for choosing the
most auspicious spatial settings. These spatial settings comprise “two fundamental
geographic attributes: a 'site' – the actual space occupied by the structure – and its
'situation' – the location of the site in relation to its brother surroundings”.183 The
fengshui xiansheng (geomancer), who was traditionally regarded as knowing the
mysteries of heaven and earth, used an instrument called luopan to guide him in
finding the ideal building site.184 In some cases, the spatial settings could be slightly
different according to the owner's family lineage.185
Just as there were characteristics defining the most auspicious spatial settings
for dwellings, there were also rules governing the structure of the dwelling itself.
Accordingly, it was believed that “The template for an auspicious dwelling was the
shape of a body with two outstretched or embracing arms, as with analogous and
brother fengshui configurations (Fig.28), as are seen in the floor plans of courtyardstyle
houses”.186 It was further believed that “The court is the heart of the oriental
urban house and no single word in another language can equal the poetry of its
Chinese name [tianjing] which, translated, is 'the well of heaven'; this well provides
the house with light, air and rainwater”.187
The word jia, along with the meaning of 'multigenerational household',
“refers to one of the stepped-roof purlins, the horizontal longitudinal timbers
needed to support the common rafters of a rising roof … As a fundamental measure
of width, jian is the span between two lateral columns or pillars that constitutes a
bay”188 (Fig.29). Jian has also a more extended meaning, for it can be interpreted as
the volumetric void formed by the floor and a minimum of four columns, with the
walls wrapping it as a skin, and forming the smallest Chinese dwelling module. This
minimal structure might sometimes represent a household in an early stage of
family formation, or one recently moved to one area.189
The smallest dwelling commonly found in northern China, however, is made
by three jian with openings facing south. In southern China, the jian is wider and the
depth of the bays is deeper, being the overall depth commonly increased by a row
of three jian. In both types, the number of jian is always an odd multiple, generally
three, five or seven (Fig.30).190 Accordingly, as the family becomes prosperous,
dwelling additions differ in the “northern prototypical yuanzy courtyard type open
space from its condensed southern cousins, the tianjing, or 'skywell type', and its
variant the compact yikeyin, or 'seal style' “(Fig.31).191
In 1976, archaeological evidence of the utilisation of completely enclosed
courtyards in the Zhou period was found 100km west of Xi'an in the excavation of a
sophisticated building complex with three courtyards. An engraved stone from the
Han period, previously discovered in the Yinan tomb in Shandong, depicted a twocourt
tingyuan, highlighting the spatial attributes of the siheyuan: the hierarchical
organisation of space, the axiality with the balanced symmetry, and the orientation
to the north (Fig.32).192 The siheyuan, generally translated into English as a
‘quadrangle’, is an uncovered yard with parallel buildings on the four sides, where
each of the buildings facing south (horizontal in relation to the north-south axis) is
called a jin. Thus, a two-jin quadrangle comprises two courtyards forming a larger
siheyuan (Fig.33).
The width of the courtyards in southern China is normally equal to the size of
the central module (jian) of the jin (Fig.34) whereas, in the north, the Beijing
quadrangle court has the same width of the three-jian building placed on its north
side. Adequate ventilation was always provided, either with narrower courtyards or
with more generous ones (such as the Beijing siheyuan courtyard), which generally
account for 40% of the total ground area (Fig.35).193
For more than three thousand years, Beijing, capital of the People's Republic
of China (since 1949), has been an intermittent stage for several human
settlements, beginning with the Zhoukoudian cave system where the Peking Man
(Homo erectus pekinensis) lived in its vicinity (750,000 BC-200,000 BC).194
Sometimes under different names, it was the capital of the Liao, Jin, Yuan, Ming and
Qing dynasties, eventually becoming the capital of the Republic of China (1912 AD-
1928 AD). With the name Dadu, the new capital of the Mongol Empire (Yuan
Dynasty, 1279 AD-1368 AD) was built, applying the Kaogong ji planning principles of
the Zhou period.195 Dadu's plan determined the hutong gridiron where the
siheyuan court type began its development. In the following Ming and Qing (1644
AD-1911 AD) dynasties, they consolidated the housing structure, and this structure
became the veins and the cells of Beijing.196
At that time, there were primarily three types of siheyuan in Beijing; their size
and form corresponded to the social status of the family householder. Four
buildings formed a small (one-jin) siheyuan, a rather simple layout with one court
and one gate located in the southeast corner of the court (Fig.36).197 A mediumsized
siheyuan compromised an inner courtyard and an outer courtyard. They were
separated by a wall and linked through a gate located in the partition wall, along the
central axis on the southern side.
So, as an experience, after entering the main gate, guests would see a spirit
(screen) wall ahead and, after tuning left, they would be confronted by doors and
windows facing north. Known as ‘north-facing houses’ or ‘south houses’, these
shelters were used by servants and guests, and for storage. With the permission of
the patriarch, the guests would turn right to pass through The Gate of Hanging
Flowers (chuihuamen), entering the main courtyard. On both sides of this gate,
there were accommodations rooms with verandas, where the east wing was used
by the sons and the west wing for the daughters. On the north side of the courtyard
was the main pavilion, reserved for the eldest person with the highest authority. No
male guests were allowed behind this pavilion because single girls were
accommodated with the female servants in the last row of rooms facing south,
forming a backyard.
Large siheyuan were also called shenzhay dayuan (deep residence, big
courtyard).198 These had several courtyards with rock gardens and pools in the main
axis, as well as side courtyards and elaborate gardens. Rare flowers planted in the
courtyards provided multi-coloured decoration and pleasant odours throughout the
year. These compounds were reserved for royal relatives, noble families and highranking
officials. If there was an incident involving family rules, family affairs, or
praise and punishment, the leader of the family would hold a family meeting in the
ancestral hall. Often magnificently built as the jin of the southern courtyard, it
displayed the family reliquaries as a way of emphasizing clan and god authority
authority of God.
Feudal families had an essential role in the preservation of ethics and social
order. As the typical dwelling of feudal families, the quadrangle became the physical
location supporting this social order: “Within the cellular form of a siheyuan, the
spatial manifestations of open or closed, front or back, and above or below not only
echoed but also helped regulate traditional Chinese social relationships.”199
Accordingly, the siheyuan typology evolved, determining building locations directly
related to their functions: living, study, social activities, fellowship and meetings,
worship and social ethics and morality. Living was the main function of the
quadrangle where very strict rules applied to the hierarchical distribution of rooms.
As study was considered the most important achievement in a person’s life,
teachers came to tutor younger family members in the study room, frequently
located by the garden. The lack of appropriate space in smaller dwellings (one-jin
siheyuan) required extended social celebrations to be made in a neighbor's larger
siheyuan (two or more jin). Those houses generally had a living room located in the
southern courtyard area where the head of the family would await guests. In most
of these dwellings, the living room and study room were the same.200
Korean families had similar kinship. Accordingly, their dwellings displayed a
similar hierarchical sequence of rooms, which took the veneration of elders and
women’s privacy into account; however, Korean culture influenced some changes in
the building layout. Even though fengshui canons were drawn on, for example, rigid
symmetry in relation to a central axis was ignored when sitting a building
compound around a courtyard. The building structure was assembled by an odd
number of kan, a construction module similar in size to the Chinese jian. Known as
ondol in Korea, the heating method of warming the floor through smoke became
widely used after the middle of the seventeenth century.201 The building
techniques of the northern Chinese courtyard remained similar in Korea.202
The Korean peninsula worked as a corridor for introducing Chinese culture to
Japan. The importance of Chinese city planning in Japan is demonstrated by the
influence of the Chang'an city plan in the layout of Tokyo and Nara. One important
difference in city planning between China and Japan is that, in the latter, feudal
lords were not allowed to build town walls. This policy intended to constrain the
feudal lords’ endeavours to attain excessive regional power. In the ninth century,
Buddhist monks brought the courtyards from China to Japan and built temples using
courtyard building structures; these remain today as exemplars of ninth century
Buddhist architecture.
Inca civilisation
Further afield in South America, it is possible that the knowledge of courtyard
housing structures used by Peru's ancient Mochica civilisation was passed on by
Japanese and Taiwanese people who visited before the arrival of the Spanish
conquerors.203 The exposure to these civilisations that had already built courtyards
may be the reason why pre-Colombian Inca civilisations were noted for their
courtyard housing structures of various sizes. These structures, called kancha, are
constructed by arranging residences or work areas around courtyards. Located in
the Cusichaca River valley between Machu Pichu and Ollantaytambo, Patallaqta is a
relevant example of a planned kancha complex because of its importance as an
administrative centre, albeit supported by satellite housing groups functionally
related to the central administration; it consisted of 112 buildings that formed
different sizes of kancha, indicating the hierarchical ranking of its residents
(Fig.37).204
By 1532, the Inca Empire stretched along the west coast of South America for
more than 4,000km between Chile and Ecuador. The Incas had sophisticated
building techniques. However, with the exception of the city of Cuzco – where the
Inca emperor lived – the Incas did not develop a large urban concept. This “lack of
cities may, however, result from a planned policy of territorial control. It seems that
the nucleus of control was more important than the great city”.205 Nevertheless, by
the time of the Spanish occupation (Cuzco-1533), some of the administrative
centres – such as Ollantaytambo and Chucuito – already exhibited a regular
planning grid. This characterised the urban concept of the final years of the Inca
Empire, and suggested an increasing concern with precise principles of order (Figs.
38 and 39).206
Different urban principles of order, which were based on the Laws of Indies
documents issued by the Spanish King Felipe II in 1573, were brought to America by
Spanish colonisation as it is explained in section S_3.2.2. The Laws of Indies
established an ordered layout for the new colony’s cities were the size of the blocks
varied according to the neighbourhoods, which were designed in consideration of
economic, social, and topographical parameters. Yet, it is important to note that in
both principles of order (Inca and Spanish), the regular planning grid had
dimensions appropriate for the implementation of courtyard house shapes 207 in
accordance with the functions and activities required of each courtyard.
The Spanish courtyard house types were built by wealthy families; they had
large footprints and tended to have a quadrangular form. They were built in both
urban and rural contexts, albeit with adaptations to suit the different climatic needs
of the scattered Spanish colonies. In southern California (1895-1930) for instance,
one could mention the patio house model developed. This was a pastiche of either
the Spanish quadrangular patio house or the native dwellings of the Pueblo tribes
from Mexico.208 As such, it demonstrated the easy adaptation of the courtyard
house in North America where it was framed by two distinct cultural backgrounds.
CH: twentieth century
Until the nineteenth century, large quadrangular courtyard houses, such as
the French hôtels209 and the Dutch hofjies210, were also built in the cold European
climates. However, small courtyard houses built for cold climates made their first
appearance in the twentieth century, mainly in northern Europe.211 Their compact
grouping allowed for the implementation of urban densities higher that the ones
facilitated by the standalone typologies, in areas where the building heights were
limited to 1/2-storeys by municipal codes. The examples selected from this point on
belong to this group as they fit the size patterns utilised in the courtyard house
prototypes of this study.
Atrium house
The origin of the twentieth century courtyard house in northern Europe was
the Roman domus, previously described. Its utilisation in the twentieth century had,
in general, a rather simplified symmetric approach and both house and courtyard
were generally square. Even though a water element (sometimes a larger pool) was
placed in the atrium, this area was frequently planted. Some examples had an
arcade around them, combining in just one open space the elements of the ancient
atrium and peristyle. The latter was commonly replaced either by the space around
the house or by a garden located on one side of the house. However, the main
difference from its precedent was that it was conceived as a standalone building,
generally with windows on the sides.
The atrium house was commonly found sited on large lots exposed to strong
winds, as justified by Charles Voysey: “Hence the garden court, which is planned to
catch the sun without the wind. Being entirely enclosed, all the doors can be left
open at night, so that a family desiring to sleep in the open air can enjoy it to their
heart's content.”212 In England, a pioneering example is Edwin Lutyens’ Orchard
House at Godalming (1899 - Fig.50). Worthy of mention also is the minimal open
space proposed by the Frenchman Tony Garnier in a house with seven bedrooms
and a studio, which was published in Une cité industrielle213 (1904 - Fig.51). By 1931,
the German Gebhard Apprich proposed a house with a courtyard surrounded by a
glass-walled corridor that provided views of the courtyard from the rooms
(Fig.52).214 A later example is Eduardo Souto Moura’s house in Alcanena, Portugal
(1992). Based on a Roman villa ruin nearby, the house is divided by functions into
three sections, and further encloses the courtyard on the fourth side with a tall wall
(Fig.53).
One can consider variations of the atrium house, where only three sides of the
courtyard are built. After World War II, in England, there is the example of Antony
Chitty’s house at Churt (Fig.54), or the house designed by Clive Entwistle in
collaboration with Le Corbusier exhibited at the Women's Fair in London (1938 -
Fig.55). Furthermore, an interesting variation of the atrium house was built by Alvar
Aalto at Muuratsalo (1953) to serve as his summerhouse. In this case, the variation
was the combination of the atrium house square concept with an L-shaped
courtyard plan (Fig.56).
Binuclear house (Zero-Lot
The courtyard house that was separated into two distinct areas was named as
‘binuclear’ by Marcel Breuer in 1943.215 Resident in Cambridge (Massachusetts)
since 1937, Breuer defined it as “a house with living and sleeping separated into
two blocks, with the entrance the connecting link between the two. Breuer's
binuclear houses were oriented outwards, as was expressed by their butterfly roofs;
however, the term is used here for introspective houses also.”216 Brought to
America by the immigrants from Europe, the functional articulation of the binuclear
patio house plan is based on the atrium house. The examples mentioned
At the beginning of the twentieth century, innovative forms were developed
by architects who used either one quadrangular courtyard – such as seen in Charles
and Henry Greene’s ‘Bandini House’ (Pasadena, 1903 - Fig.40) – or two or more
courtyards, such as those seen in H. H. Harris’s ‘Lowe House’ (Altadena, 1934 -
Fig.41) and Rudolf Shindler’s ‘House at Hollywood’ (1921 - Fig.42). However, up
until World War II, these spacious house models were seen by East Coast architects
as “exotic and not fitting for other parts of the country”.217
By 1940, however, the 3-storey Hamby and Nelson ‘Fairchild House’ in
Manhattan was designed in two parts, with a patio between the parts and a ramped
access as connection on one side (Fig.43). The 7.5m wide lot pioneered this
compact model of a courtyard house, of which the most known example is Chester
Mansel’s own house in Five Fields (Massachusetts), designed in1953. Built on a
wider lot (10m), this design facilitated better views from the rooms to the wider
courtyard by decreasing the width of the corridor between the sections (Fig.44).218
Most relevant to this study is the example that Karl Langer proposes in his
short book Subtropical Housing (published in Brisbane in 1944). In this example, the
courtyard between the two functional parts is designed for “outdoor living and
social entertainment”, and the backyard is planned as a “children’s play area in full
view of the kitchen” (Fig.45).219 The house was divided into two blocks, and evolved
to include lengthier floor plans with more courtyards. The design developed by
Serge Chermayeff with his students in Harvard, and used for his own house in New
Haven, is an example of this development (Fig.46)220.
There are many possible illustrations of recent 2-storey projects where
courtyards separate the houses’ functions. To name but a few, there is Lola
Domenech’s (2004) house on Minorca Island (Fig.47); Adam Haddow’s (2003)
Sydney Boathouse Terraces at Glebe harbour (Fig.48); and Fairweather Proberts’
(2008) Subtropical Town House, designed for the Queensland University of
Technology’s (QUT) Centre for Subtropical Design charrette (Fig.49).
L-Shape
Macintosh commented that the origin of the L-shaped courtyard house was
the single aspect courtyard house designed by the Berliner Hugo Häring in 1928
(Fig.57). This house was first built for the Werkbundsiedlung Lainz building
exhibition (Vienna, 1932); it was located next to the L-shaped courtyard house
designed by the Austrian Anton Brener (Fig.58). Häring’s house was described then
by the magazine Moderne Bauformen: “... the one-storey building has almost no
aspect on three sides, and one side with large windows looking into the garden. The
north wall of the next house is quite blank to the garden, increasing its
habitableness”.221 However, as the single aspect courtyard house was not very
successful, the concept was modified by two Bauhaus staff members, the director
Hannes Meyer and the instructor in housing and town planning Ludwig
Hilberseimer.222
Hilberseimer improved the design of the L-shaped house interior in his
Growing House (1930); however, as there was not a private outdoor space and the
rooms looked outwards, the house did not fulfil the definition of a true courtyard
house (Fig.59).223 In the following year, The Growing House was modified, using the
binuclear and expansibility concepts in a ‘true’ courtyard house: the Type E House
(Fig.60 and Fig.61). This is the classical model of the L-shaped courtyard house,
which has hardly been improved upon since that time”.224 A larger but rather
minimalist scheme of this type, probably based on Hilberseimer’s schemes, was
Mies van der Rowe’s ‘Row House’ designed in 1931 when he was director of the
Bauhaus (Fig.62).
By 1930, Hilberseimer studied density values in low-rise (2-storey) CH by
designing an urban layout with a ratio of 50% site occupation. He used a terraced
pattern of Type E houses with footpath access, but excluding public open spaces,
parking, and garages. He found that the scheme had a density of 324 persons per
hectare (ppha). He compared his housing scheme with a 10-storey slab block
pattern, applying the same standard shadow angle to establish the spacing of the
blocks; the results showed that residential density was equal in both cases.225 Later
in Munich (1932), Uli Seeck showed that the construction costs of his 16 L-shaped
housing (1-storey) scheme were no higher than the cost of a scheme using 2-storey
houses.226 This comparison demonstrated that the L-Shape courtyard houses could
achieve high densities at no extra construction cost.
During the Great Depression (1929-31), most European countries were
determined to eliminate unhealthy city slums and to produce low cost mass housing
for the rural workers that migrated to the industrial cities. Even though the most
formal solutions to address this need were found in increased building heights and
pavilion type solutions influenced by the Garden City movement,227 Germany
sought to create new types of both low and high-rise housing. The German
government at that time had policies that limited building heights to four storeys,
and incentivised the building of one-storey houses with gardens. This generated
strong opposition from some architects.
Walter Gropius’s main objection to low-rise housing was its inherent low
density which created longer commuting distances, and increased the amount of
time that workers had to spend both in transportation and in house/garden
maintenance. Conversely, as Hilberseimer thought that both solutions should
coexist, all of his projects included a mix of both low and high densities to provide
choice for householders. He argued that, “low-rise housing with gardens is the most
suitable type for families with children, while for childless couples and single people
high-rise housing with communal facilities where possible is the best type of
housing”.228
After 1938, Mies and Hilberseimer disseminated the courtyard designs in their
teachings at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. In 1957, they produced
‘Cluster Houses for Detroit’, a housing group scheme consisting of repeatable
clusters of different sizes houses (Fig.63). In the 1940s in Britain, Walter Segal
disseminated the single aspect and the L-shaped courtyard types in both one and 2-
storey versions in his published schemes. With 1-storey (138ppha) and 2-storey
variations (250ppha), one of these schemes provided access to the house through
the courtyard both from the street and from the common green area that was
proposed to separate the groups of aligned houses (Fig.64 and Fig.65).229 Roger
Walters, previously Segal’s assistant, designed a proposal for 2-storey houses (170
units – 104ppha) in Aldershot. This design aligned the second floor axis with the
north-south direction to achieve higher sun penetration in the courtyard and living
areas (Fig.66).230
The first large grouping (156 units) of L-shaped courtyard housing built in
Europe was Adalberto Libera’s (1952) variable size houses at Tuscolano (Rome),
which incorporated a large public space (Fig.67, Fig.68).231 One of the first grouped
schemes built in Britain came later (1956); it was designed by Frank Perry Housing
at Leith Fort in Edinburgh. The split-level houses were grouped around a central
public space, forming a cluster that could be repeated; the public space here was
accessible by the surrounding houses and had just one street access (Fig.69). Other
contemporaneous layout schemes of housing clusters and public spaces served by a
legible network of pedestrian paths and roads, were the Albertslung scheme in
Denmark, which comprised 986 L-shaped houses with paved public spaces (1963),
and Gela New Town (1962) in Sicily, which offered large green spaces within the
housing clusters (Fig.70).232
Prestonpans Experiment, Scotland
Two experimental L-shaped housing schemes in Scotland are important to
mention, not only for their cluster design, but for the findings of residents’
evaluations of their general performance one year after construction.233 The
government commissioned the projects and the survey to the Edinburgh University
Architectural Research Unit for the purpose of verifying if courtyard housing types
could serve as exemplars for future public housing. The first scheme built in
Prestonpans (1962) comprised 45 houses (Fig.71); the second scheme (47 houses)
was built at Dundee in 1965.
The density of the scheme was 111ppha; the pedestrian pathways and public
open space areas occupied 55% of the site; roads occupied 34%; and vehicular
circulation/parking 11%. A primary school was built in an adjacent lot. A secondary
school and convenience stores were located 800m from the site. 234 Car parking
spaces (there were no garages) were provided in the surrounding streets at a ratio
of one car per dwelling. The public space network was constituted by one central
planted space, and two smaller, paved spaces (vennel courts). To respond to the
climate, some of the pedestrian vennels (pathways) were covered. After typological
research in Europe, the choice of house layout was based on Adalberto Libera’s 1-
storey houses in Rome,235 although the Spanish version provided a more direct
access to the courtyard (Fig.72). Almost all of the houses had separate entrances,
one of which was through the courtyard.236
The residents’ reports were positive. The adaptation to the courtyard type
was straightforward, and the level of satisfaction was high (90%). The main reasons
for satisfaction were the privacy, the single-storey attribute and the easy
housekeeping. Most popular complaints were that the courtyard fences were easy
to climb (by children); the existence of a kitchen/living room divider; the high
cost/inefficiency of the underfloor heating; and the thermal comfort problems
caused by draught and condensation inside the dwellings. The dual access to the
houses pleased the tenants, although the courtyard access was frequently more
utilised (by bicycles, services, and children). The size of the courtyards (7.3x5.8m)
was also considered adequate. Eighty percent of the householders cultivated lawns;
however, the clothes drying area for larger families interfered with the children’s
activities.237
Relevant to the use of the courtyards and the sequence of exterior spaces was
the children’s pattern of play. Children under 3 years old (38%) used the courtyard
“either in a pram or a play pen”. Children aged 3 to 10 years (46%) were divided
into two groups: children aged 3 to 5 years had the playing activities limited to their
own courtyards (and those of neighbor friends) and on the adjacent vennel (lane) or
vennel court; children aged 5 to 10 years ranged fairly freely across the whole
housing scheme, which included both the central planting plaza and the adjacent
service areas. Children aged 10 or over had little or no demand for play space within
the housing scheme because they had freedom to utilise other areas nearby (e.g.
public playgrounds).238 Nevertheless, the vennel courts were considered inadequate
in size (≈8x8m) to serve as an optional space for children to play with their
prams/tricycles, and the plants provided by the city council were inefficient in
providing the intended acoustic/visual privacy. The size of the flora species planted
in the central public space was inappropriate, they were not well positioned with
regard to children’s use of the space, and little maintenance was provided by the
city council.
Walking to/from the car parking was satisfactory, however, one third of the
car owners kept their cars in neighbouring friends garages located at a 5/7-minute
walking distance to avoid the likelihood of car damage caused by the children. Noise
was not considered a problem for the residents, who in fact found the housing
compound quieter than their previous housing locations. However, some residents
mentioned that double glazing or other methods of sound reduction could be
considered in those parts of a scheme where noise is likely to be greatest,
particularly if the adjoining houses are to be occupied by elderly tenants.239 Some of
these housebound tenants also complained they could not view people outside
because of the small size/position of the windows facing the vennels, and this led to
psychological isolation and consequent depression.
However, these few shortcomings did not compromise the sense of privacy. In
fact, a fifth of the housewives mentioned they had made ‘new friends’ among the
residents, and three quarters declared that, in one year, they had made
acquaintances with neighbours, whom they could ‘stop and talk to’.240 The vennel
courts and the central planted space served to facilitate socialisation and some of
the women took scheduled turns to supervise their children in the open space. The
main conclusion of both reports was that “…the majority of housewives were well
satisfied with the courtyard house type and with what it had to offer.”241
PREVI Experiment, Peru
The previous experiments demonstrate tenants’ satisfaction with a courtyard
house layout – a layout hat was predetermined without their participation. By
contrast, the example of PRoyecto Experimental de VIvienda (PREVI), or
‘experimental housing project’, offered the householder a choice of house type
before its construction. In 1965, the architect-president of Peru, Fernando Belaúnde
Terry, created a program to produce social housing for people who lived in Lima’s
slums (barriadas). With the approval of the United Nations (UN) in 1967, twenty-six
architects (13 Peruvian,242 13 international243) were invited to present low-rise,
high-density proposals for a competition that would select three projects for the
construction of 1500 dwellings in three phases. construction
The process was originally intended to select only one prototype that was to
be repeated in a large-scale social housing development. The prototype brief aimed
to offer a core house model consisting of one room plus the essential dwelling
utility areas (living, dining, kitchen, bathroom and service patio). Thereafter, the
owners were free to expand the residential unit as family growth demanded, and
their financial situation allowed. The prototype plot had to be 80-150m² for an
effective occupation between 60-120m² providing flexibility for future
accommodation of eight children of different ages and an elderly couple (in
addition to the householders). 244
However, after the selection of three winning projects,245 the jury246 decided
that, rather than nominating just one prototype to replicate multiple times, the
development area would accommodate a collage of the 26 proposals, assembled to
build a neighbourhood with 467 dwellings (Fig.73).247 While it would be of great
interest to discuss and compare each of these developed projects in terms of
typologies, construction techniques, and urban layouts, it is more relevant (for this
current study) to focus on the concepts of the built urban plan, and in three
courtyard house projects.
The urban layout (and initial construction) was led by Peter Land (UN), who
coordinated a national/international multidisciplinary group to produce a refined
network of public spaces, easily accessible from each dwelling, and articulating
diverse modes of transportation. The urban design established the foundations of
an unfinished plan that would be completed by its community to build a freemarket-
designed neighbourhood with a thriving economy.248
The urban layout considered three significant strategies, as described by
García-Huidobro et al:

A pedestrian axis that connects educational and sports facilities and the

main park. Running through the centre of the neighbourhood, the


pedestrian street activates and defines its core, allowing any public
transport to stop to make the whole system more efficient.

A network of small plazas and pedestrian passages based on the

relationship between the urban unit (the plaza) and the social unit (the
self-organising community). This urban/social connection promotes the
collective care and maintenance of public space, allowing the plazas to
serve as an extension of the domestic space. This plaza and passage
scheme also articulates the different clusters formed by the original
projects.

Traffic separation, with perimeter roads, cul-de-sacs and parking areas –

a layout that does not interrupt the pedestrian network of public spaces.
Avoiding the fragmentation of traditional street layouts in this way
means significantly reduced air and noise pollution, and increased safety,
improving quality of life. 249
The three courtyard houses chosen here as good examples of the three
typologies previously described: a binuclear courtyard house designed by Kikutake,
Maki, Kurokawa of Japan (Fig.74); an atrium house by James Stirling from England
(Fig.75); and an L-shaped house by Esquerra, Samper, Sáenz, Urdaneta from
Colombia (Fig.76). The three houses accomplished the pre-established prototype
brief, while also achieving economies in the water systems and maximising natural
ventilation.250
The three designers used pre-fab concrete modules in the basic unit model.
The large panels used by the first two, however, could not be used in future
additions to the house once the main contractors’ cranes had left the site; nor could
they be moved to more suitable positions during the growth of the house because
of their structural function. More effective, for instance, was the structural T bean
used by Esquera, which allowed the wall built under it to be removed according to
the functional changes in the use of the metamorphic spaces. Nevertheless, some
of the architects’ designs for smaller modules were fabricated in situ, integrated
local materials, used contemporaneous modes of construction, and proved to be
the most resilient construction process for the whole neighbourhood.251
Yet, it was James Stirling who accurately predicted the social behaviour of the
future residents. The result was that his prototype was the most requested and the
one that displayed “PREVI’s finest qualities of occupancy.”252 Important in this
overall preference were the separate kitchen, and the growth area (foreseen for the
first two stages of growth: 4 to 6, and 6 to 8 persons), which was suggested to be
created by the use of a movable wall. All the rooms were planned to allow crossventilation
by placing openings on opposite walls. The access to the house included
two front entrance doors: one door led to the living/social area so important for the
Peruvian communities to receive friends and neighbours; the other was functional,
connecting to the house circulation area via the courtyard and the staircase. Each
group of four houses had a central service patio for common services.
Lastly, yet importantly, Stiling’s growth system proved to be the most
appropriate for the low-income nuclear family’s growth stage (from 4 to 8 persons),
which was all planned for the ground floor. The house later expanded to a floor
above, either providing for a separate dwelling or for additional living spaces and
bedrooms for a larger family; part of the ground level could then accommodate
other functions (e.g., a shop).253
The construction of all the basic unit modules was completed by 1977. While
the first concern of the householders in the basic unit was to increase security and
to add individual touches, most of the houses located on the main internal paths
added retail spaces as a complementary source of family income. These spaces
were either rented or operated by the owner’s family. This promoted both the
foundation of social networks, and an improvement in domestic economy through
the integration “of ‘income units’; that is, independent houses or facilities which
families can use to increase their income. Examples of this include the multifamily
house and, to a greater extent, the ‘hyperhouse’. In the latter case, the value of the
house lies not only in its capacity as a home, but also in its potential for generating
income and strengthening the family’s economy. It thus represents an optimal
approach to social investment in housing issues.”254 This concept was most relevant
for the urban design prototypes, namely, the L-Shape.
In the last forty years, PREVI neighbourhood has become self-sufficient and is
coordinated by community leaders who are trained by council officers, architects
and social sciences students. It became “a housing laboratory containing so many
design ideas that was so diverse and adaptable that it can probably never be
repeated,”255 “a shift from a dogmatic modernist approach to housing … to one that
capitalises on the evolutionary, organic nature of informal settlements”.256
Unlike the expansible houses designed in the 1930s in Europe, where “the
pattern has remained for families to move to a bigger house rather than enlarge the
one they already occupy”,257 in PREVI, “people didn't move out as their financial
situations improved. Residents stayed, and turned a housing estate into what feels
like a middle-class community; … its residents go about their lives feeling lucky that
they live where they do”.258 While these facts show that expansible courtyard
houses can provide general satisfaction, a further question that needs to be
addressed is: Can they be achieved voluntarily, through affordable and feasible
change, and the available construction techniques?
Summary: CH precedents
Drawing on the examples discussed above, this summary identifies (in list
format annotated with my comments) the most important issues/features related
to the urban design prototype components of buildings, courtyards, blocks and
streets. These are:
Buildings

Socrates defined that a perfect house ought to be cool in summer and warm in

winter (This is still a reality today)

In ancient Greece, to maintain privacy, façades displayed only small, high


windows used mainly for cross-ventilation purposes; similar conditions are
currently provided by single-loaded corridor systems that provide limited crossventilation
through high windows facing elevated pathways (With regard to this
inquiry, this approach was considered insufficient for subtropical climate
requisites)

In ancient Bagdad ventilation was an essential consideration in determining the

way the house sections were utilised because house divisions had
255 McGuirk 2011, PREVI: The Metabolist utopia
256 Ibid.

257 Macintosh 1973, The modern courtyard house: a history 32


258 McGuirk 2011, PREVI: The Metabolist utopia
2015-11-05| 13:24
Chapter 3: Precedents 79

Buildings
multifunctional uses; this utilisation varied according to the seasons of the year
and the daily temperatures (This flexibility depends on the mobility of the
furniture, and this is rather difficult to accomplish in contemporary societies)

Also in Bagdad, people moved between rooms or to the terrace, according to

their need for thermal comfort (In subtropical climates, balconies placed on
both sides of the double orientation residential units provide for this
movement)

In ancient Egypt wind was captured and directed through a system (In this

inquiry, this is achieved through the utilisation of double orientation dwelling


units)

In Cordoba and Palma de Mallorca, air-permeable iron gates define the limits of

privacy and allow for ventilation (A similar system is used in this study, in the
wind tunnels that access the shared courtyard of the CCH, and in the courtyard
accesses of the L-Shape dwelling)

The strategy of having the residential unit entrances accessed by a raised

veranda with lateral benches to accommodate visitors was used in ancient India
(This was adapted in this study as a solution to accessing the ground floor
dwellings of the CCH)

The study room, frequently located next to the garden in the Chinese siheyuan,
emphasises the value of having visual and physical access to a
private/semiprivate space from the dwelling units (CCH Double offers an
equivalent covered area between the two courtyards)

Some courtyard houses (e.g. the 20th century binuclear houses) had living and

sleeping functions in two separate blocks (This could be used today; however,
extreme compartmentalization would increase construction costs significantly)

Courtyards in cold climates were planned to have solar exposure while, at the

same time, providing protection against cold winds (This strategy is also used in
the urban design prototypes developed for this study)

Low-rise housing with gardens was recognised in some precedents as being the

most suitable housing type for families with children (This was taken into
consideration in the design of the courtyards in this study)

Many of the previous examples had separate entrances from the street to the

house and from the street to the courtyard (This feature is applied in the CH
developed in this study)

Successful features exemplified in the Prestonpans Experiment were privacy,

the single-storey attribute, and easy housekeeping (These are taken into
consideration in the design of both the dwellings and the courtyards in this
study)
2015-11-05| 13:24
80 Chapter 3: Precedents

Buildings

The key resident complaints arising from the Prestonpans Experiment were

transparent courtyard fences, the kitchen/living room divider, and small


windows to the public spaces (These were avoided in the design of the
prototypes)

Dwelling expansions to accommodate new family members or to be rented as a

source of income could be accommodated on an upper floor (In the current


designs, retail space aligned with the street could serve as a complementary
source of family income)

Comparisons of the costs of courtyard houses and other low-rise types have

been mostly inconclusive in the 20th Century (This raises a suggestion for
further research)
Blocks

The ancient Greek strategy was to limit the size of a polis and, thereafter, to

develop a new polis (with relative autonomy) within a determined distance


(This can be compared with the compact and multiuse characteristics of TOD
addressed in this study)

The blend of smaller and larger houses in the same area, represents the

absence of predetermined areas for wealthy owners in ancient cultures (This


can be compared to TOD’s aim of social diversity today)

A balance between economic planning and free market design was achieved in

PREVI (This served as best practice evidence for the CH prototypes)

The network of small plazas and pedestrian passages (based on the relationship

between the urban unit [the plaza] and the social unit [the self-organising
community]) was a feature of both the PREVI and Prestonpans Experiments
(These were significant precedents for the design of the CH prototypes)
Streets

The colonnaded bazaar streets were closer to the mosques (This suggested the

possibility of a similar precinct around multimodal stations)

A plan determined the Chinese hutong gridiron where the siheyuan court type

began its development; similar plans to accommodate courtyards were


previously established for the pyramid workers in Egypt, and for the Greek
colonies in the Mediterranean (This corroborates the importance to plan for a
gridiron according to courtyard housing typologies)
2015-11-05| 13:24
Chapter 3: Precedents 81

Streets

The pedestrian axis connects educational and sports facilities and the main park

crossing the centre of the neighbourhood in the PREVI plan (This served as the
basic concept for the CH lane network)

The pedestrian street that activates and defines PREVI’s core plan allows for an

informal connection to public transport, and renders the whole system more
efficient (This notion became a guideline for both the CH and CCH public
transport network)

Traffic separation, with perimeter roads and parking areas forming a layout that

does not interrupt the pedestrian network of public spaces was adopted in
both PREVI and Prestonpans Experiments (The same concept is applied in the
Collage Plan)
Private courtyards

The previous examples identify the preference for a private sphere, and the

desire to assert control over the space used by the household (This is
recognised through design in this study)

The atrium space in the Roman culture acquired a social function, evolving into

a social reception area (This socially functional space can be compared to the
private/semi-private courtyards proposed in this study)

In the examples of Islamic gardens, water was contained in tanks; its shape was

determined by channels, chutes and fountains that helped to control light and
shadow to provide an earthly paradise (These elements and forms are applied
in the courtyards designed for the prototypes in this study)

Ancient courtyards were characterised as a void, or a void in the ground with a

well to capture the rainwater and a tree to provide shade in the summer, thus
creating the image of ‘the well of heaven’ (These elements assume great
importance in the prototype courtyard designs)

The Chinese two-jin quadrangle comprised two courtyards, forming a larger

courtyard (siheyuan) (This was the precedent for the CCH double)

In ancient civilisations, courtyard size and form corresponded to the social

status of the family householders (The association of courtyards with


distinction or status could help to fulfil individuals’ sense of identity in today’s
society also)

In the large Chinese siheyuan, rare flowers planted in the courtyards provided

multi-coloured decoration and pleasant aromas (The selection of appropriate


species for the CCH by landscape architects/botanists will also provide this
2015-11-05| 13:24
82 Chapter 3: Precedents
Private courtyards
outcome)
Discussions about how these topics are utilised in the current design are
documented in C_ 5 and in the Appendices. The courtyards attributes reviewed in
this section are further discussed in section S_3.2.3.

3.2.2 Communal courtyard housing (CCH)


This subsection identifies the architectural dimensions and overall
characteristics of both successful and not-so-successful examples of communal
courtyard housing in urban contexts. Many other examples could be mentioned to
corroborate the current choices; however, these would only serve as repetition of
the main issues already pinpointed. The description is made across time, albeit with
a closer attention to the resilience of the communal courtyard housing in twentieth
century Europe.
Early precedents
An early precedent of communal courtyard housing was recently unveiled
(1989-2004) in the archaeological site of Sha’ar Hagolan in Israel,259 dated 6400–
5800 BC. The 20ha settlement precedes the civilisations described in the previous
section (3.2.1) by three millennia, and is located close to the intersection of the
boundaries of the current states of Israel, Jordan and Syria. The excavations show a
hierarchy of main and secondary streets, the former paved with pebbles and built
with water drainage channels on the sides, thus indicating a high level of settlement
planning. Unlike other contemporaneous settlements, there is evidence that the
streets were first built with long straight walls on each side. These walls provided
the property limits for large land parcels (settlement blocks) owned by one
family/clan, and compartments were progressively built adjacent to them.260
Important for this study, is that one might consider this land parcelling as one of the
earlier cases of a street network planned to accommodate communal courtyard
housing (Fig. 77).
The housing blocks are partitioned into smaller areas where singular size
rooms surround a central courtyard. While the rooms are not usually connected,
some are arranged in pairs, with one used as a living room and the smaller one as a
(paved) storage room. As such, it can be assumed that each unit of two rooms was a
nuclear family household and that, according to its size, the communal courtyard
structure housed either an extended family or a clan.
The courtyard was the stage for communal activities; in some cases, it would
comprise 50% of the compound area (225-710m²). It served as access to the single
compartments and the double room units, and had access from the street through
just one entrance, which was located in front of the largest double unit. This key
location allowed the householder of this unit (larger than the others) to control the
entrance and to assure the compound’s privacy.261
In the beginning of the fifth millennia BC, Anatolia262 and the eastern Levant263
had two different settlement models that used courtyard housing. One model was
made by small courtyard houses built against each another with only a few
passageways between them; access to the households (through roofs using ladders)
was unstructured (e.g. Çatal Hüyük, Anatolia).264 The other model was a network of
built streets planned to frame communal courtyard housing. The former model
disappeared, given its inappropriateness to the settlement’s growth, and the need
to consider the developing transportation modes arising from the domestication of
animals and the invention of the wheel. The latter model shows the evolution of a
social organisation through the communal utilisation of the space external to the
grouped households. In earlier settlements, the nuclear families carried out family
activities in the spaces adjacent to the sheltered areas (10-15m²), but mostly
without the help of fencing to indicate land partitions.265
The Sha’ar Hagolan plan established the distinction between ‘urban’ property
domains – the private (nuclear families units), semi-private (communal storage
rooms and courtyard), and public (streets and open spaces) – in a legible sequence
of spaces and activities. The model also pioneered the use of hierarchical street
systems that provided the alignment of building walls, producing allotments of
quarters or insulae, similar to those used in the future larger civilisations in the Early
Bronze Age II (3000-2000 BC), and described in S_3.2.1 (Fig.77).266
Roman insulae
The Latin term insula (pl. insulae) has been used in the urban literature with
diverse meanings. The most accepted meaning from the literature specialising in
Roman settlements is ‘street block’.267 However, other sources tend either to define
it as multi-storey individual dwellings placed side by side along a street block,268 or
as a “freestanding building separated from other buildings by spaces on its four
sides, with no indication of whether the feature takes up an entire city block or
merely a portion of it”.269 These two different meanings are relevant in indicating
that the term could be used either for building blocks, or for one building with
central courtyards, erected as independent bodies and separated by spaces from
larger/longer city blocks.
Insulae are also referred to as rental properties made of small individual
compartments (cella) built to house poor families. Some of these buildings had
communal courtyards used as gardened space, with side paths used to access the
multiple cellae; some examples of these can be seen in the ruins of Ostia, Italy
(Fig.78). Some insulae were built to accommodate shopfront units (tabernae), with
associated dwellings located either behind or above them. This mixed-use function
was an early establishment of the Live-Work type that was further used in the Asian
shop houses in some of the northern courtyard housing in India and Europe.
Rome's fire of AD 64 provided the chance to replan large areas of the city, and
to consolidate housing typologies using a right-angle layout to build apartment
buildings limited to 20m in height, and forming perimeter blocks. Inside Aurelian
Walls (1386ha), it is estimated that the city had 970ha dedicated to housing. The
two housing types were the domus (with an atrium and, sometimes, a peristyle),270
and the insula (building block).271 The domus suffered a metamorphosis because of
the need for higher urban densities, resulting in what Caniggia and Maffei called
‘synchronic variants’; in other words, “the same 'house concept' in situations less
fitting than with the type itself”.272
Called ‘Row Houses’, these buildings were grouped side by side along the
streets, forming an insula with a central courtyard; originally, their façades were 5-
6m in width. They then evolved in multiplies of their original width – 10-12m, 15-
18m, and 20-24m – adding stories, and installing stairs between the housing units.
This resultant housing type is referred to as ‘In-line House’ and corresponded to
what Caniggia and Maffei considered basic building types.
When originally built, row houses accommodated one single family between
their ground floor and roof whereas in-line houses represented the need for
greater dwelling density, placing several families in a single building: one on each
floor in the 10-12 meters type, two in the 20-24 meters type and, therefore,
increasing the number of stories.273
Even though the ‘in-line house’ type was placed side by side around the
blocks, the central open space was sub-divided into small parcels that were
assigned to the ground floor residents and not used as a communal courtyard. The
stairs to the coenacula274 (apartments) gave access to just two units per floor, thus
allowing the units to have windows facing both the street and the central open
space. The importance of this housing typology for this inquiry is that the back
façade of the insula building(s) faced the courtyard space; this facilitated natural
light and cross-ventilation throughout the dwellings. This building type shows an
early example of the double edge characteristic described in Chapter 5 (Fig.79).
The ten centuries after the end of the Roman Empire, commonly referred as
Medieval Ages (500-1500 A.D),275 required the European ‘cities’ to be highly
fortified by perimeter walls. This extreme densification permitted only scarce
ventilation wells for the majority of the residents. Communal courtyards were a
privilege of either noble or monastic communities’ members in palaces and
monasteries.
Spanish colonial cities
The Spanish colonisation in the sixteenth century created the opportunity to
rethink ways to build new towns. These 'principles of order' in Spain were
institutionalised by a comprehensive assembly of laws – The Laws of Indies (Leyes
de las Indias). These laws were contained in nine books issued by the Spanish Crown
(Felipe II – 1573) to regulate social, political, and economic life within the new
Spanish colonies in America and the Philippines. Book IV was dedicated to the
planning, implementation, and administration of the new settlements.
The new colonies were economically, politically, and religiously dependent on
Spain; therefore, the urban planning determined by the Laws was authoritarian and
centralist.276 The rigid gridiron plan – with a central plaza where the administrative,
commercial, and religious buildings dominated public events – was an assertion of
these characteristics.277 Therefore, the ‘principles of order’ were a framework ruling
how a city layout should be implemented rather than prescribing the form of a city
(e.g. physical structure).278
The parcels inside a block were related to the predominant block
characteristics: open, closed, and composed. Considering that most of the buildings
were not set back from the street, these characteristics were related to the shape
of the buildings in bordering streets, and to the internal distribution of solids and
voids (Fig.80). The closed block type (perimeter block) was mostly parcelled with a
series of lots, with one side facing the street and the other facing a central open
space; this facilitated cross-ventilation in the buildings. Generally, the four corner
lots had two sides facing the streets, without access to the interior open space of
the block. Frequently, these square areas accommodated either a courtyard
building (e.g., a private house or public institution) – because the courtyards
facilitated the building airflow – or narrow lots that were used for retail. The
dimensions of the lots were primarily related to the social and economic
composition and location of the neighbourhood within the city, and to the
geographical location of each city. 279

Lisbon Plan
In eighteenth century Europe, the housing compactness inside the medieval
town walls led to decreasing levels of ventilation and natural light. This condition
added to deficiencies in the water supply and inadequate sewage. Lisbon was one
of these cases, until the 1755 earthquake provided the opportunity to rebuild the
city according to contemporaneous urban design principles.280 These innovative
principles integrated a network of public spaces comprised of a hierarchy of wide
streets linking the pre-existent open spaces. The street layout is a rectangular
gridiron forming 4-storey (17-25m height) perimeter blocks (70x25m) containing a
very narrow ventilation well (45x2m); the longitudinal axis of the blocks was
oriented North/South to maximise the exposure to the predominant northern
winds on the façades.281 This example of a perimeter block used the yard between
buildings simply as an air/light well, and its functional effectiveness decreased on
the floors closer to the ground given the reduced yard width (≈2m) (Fig.81).
Paris Plan
The industrial revolution in the nineteenth century required the rural migrants
to be accommodated close to the urban industries. However, to build new housing
typologies, it was necessary to plan for a proper street network that would frame
the reformed city blocks accordingly. This was accomplished by Haussmann’s plan
for Paris (1850) that established a dialectical relationship between the buildings and
the road network. The plan changed the notion of ‘route’ within a technical concept
of modernisation and sanitation that aimed to distribute facilities and to allow for
their future expansion in the urban structure, mostly under the control of the
bourgeoisie.
The reform of the blocks’ layout included a network of perceés (openings) in
the urban fabric that connected the large squares, train stations and key public
buildings. The percées were planned as a compromise to produce property and
urban edges, attending to that network, and not intended to provide communal
spaces in their interior (Fig.82).282 The plan was very important in laying out a
pioneering urban green structure along the new buildings; this green structure also
provided for natural light and airflow. Disappointingly, the new housing units
neither contemplated the inclusion of CCH, nor allowed for social diversity as the
previous urban fabric did, thus forcing the ‘least favoured by fortune’ who had lived
in the demolished buildings to move to the city periphery. 283
Barcelona Plan
Until the end of the eighteenth century, Barcelona was able to accommodate
its population (ca.80 000) within the medieval walls. After that time, the city did not
have the space for the needed infrastructure, and the dwellings did not have
enough ventilation. At this point, the city had a higher density (856ppha)284 than
Paris (400ppha), and both the drinking-water supply and the sewage system were
inefficient. Epidemics broke out four times in the nineteenth century, and created a
very low average life expectancy.285
The large plan field around the city was vacant; however, this was a military
reserve where building construction was forbidden. This forced the small industries
and the new workers' neighbourhoods to be built inside Sants and Gràcia, the
closest settlements. In June 1859, after the demolition of the walls (1854-56), the
Spanish government appointed Ildefons Cerdà i Sunyer to implement his urban plan
for the expansion of the city.286 Cerdà was a civil engineer and a diputado (member
of the parliament) in Madrid where he had been influenced by the liberal and
radical ideas of the time. He proposed building an egalitarian city, applying the
principle of social diversity to provide equal access to quality housing; his drafts
(1855) included four apartment types for the middle and upper classes (120-
180m²), and six types for the working classes (69-103m²).287 His idea that housing
prices could be adjusted to different wages was an innovative one.288
The plan structure was defined by a gridiron formed by chamfered corner
blocks – which Cerdá named intervia (interway). This prototype considered the
relationship between buildings, the space between them, public open spaces and
streets. The preferred dimensions (113.3x113.3m) were calculated by a
mathematical formula based on the number of square metres per person and the
number of inhabitants per house. Cerdá established a 4-storey building height limit
and fixed the widths for both the space between buildings (56m) and the standard
street (20m - 10m for sidewalks).289 In addition, the building corners were cut at 45° angles
(20m long), creating octagonal blocks.290
Larger avenues and boulevards were designed to be 30m and 50m wide, thus
establishing a 3-level street hierarchy. The main avenues connected the existing
settlements with the wide roads that were designed to accommodate the steam
tram. The bevelled street corners provided an easy traffic flow, maximised visibility,
enhanced airflow, and created distinct façades with unusual framing edges. 291
Street corners became legible city ‘squares’.
In synthesis, the 1859 plan proposed:

Distance between the buildings in the block (intervía)

Buildings only on two sides of each block

16m (4-storey) height limit of buildings

Public parks within 1500 m of each block

A great park of 3.5 × 1.5 km at the northeast edge of the expansion


(Besós River)292
Some blocks were planned to be public spaces, and others to accommodate
services and equipment. In the cities created under the Laws of the Indies, space did
not allow residential blocks to be near the central plaza.293 Cerdà, however,
endeavoured to equally distribute housing and streets throughout the city fabric,
and to place services and amenities within walking distance of all housing blocks.
The intervia had just two buildings (10-20m deep), occupying 40% of the block on
two opposite sides and accommodating private yards and green spaces between
them. Pedestrian pathways connected the inner open spaces independently of the
street network. The whole plan was an extensive urban green structure (Fig.86).294
By 1863, Cerdà made the first change in the block parcelling to adapt it to the
realities of the housing market activated by the emerging economies.295 The
permission to build in only two sides of the block extended now to three sides and
the buildable area back from the street extended from the initial 20-24m to 25-
28m; this meant a decline in natural light and ventilation inside the apartments. 296
From 1860 to 1976, the increasing population and the greedy housing market
influenced the City Council to make progressive allowances in lot occupation and
building heights.
Finally, in 1976, certainly too late to save a large number of courtyard spaces,
the Plan General Metropolitano reduced the parcel occupation to 70%, the height
of the constructions inside the courtyards to 4.5m and the maximum height to
20.75m (7-storey). These new dimensions were (re)considered appropriate for the
relationship between the width of the streets and the length of the blocks.297 Since
2012, the Barcelona Council has been establishing public spaces in the interior of
the blocks in a proportion of one public space to nine blocks to provide residents
with access to public green space (plazas) that are no more than 200m from their
dwellings.298 This is a recommended strategy to enhance liveability in courtyard
housing prototypes.
Because of the extensive construction that in-filled every vertical space of the
street edges to a maximum equal height, building up an almost continuous skyline,
Cerdà's plan has been criticised for its monotonous geometric repetition of
buildings, street after street, without allowing for any permissible visual variety. 299
This streetscape monotony could be avoided if the building heights were varied.
This variation would also enhance solar exposure for both courtyards and streets.
Nevertheless, Cerdá’s Plan was an innovative urban model to be considered in
light of the urban growth plan, which he defined as the process of parcelling,
constructing, and urbanising.300 Moreover, Cerdá created a new urban culture,
linking this city – renowned for its character and its healthy population – with the
rest of the world.

Glasgow Plan
Acting as City Architect for Glasgow, John Carrick led the Improvement
Scheme for Glasgow (1866) with the aim of providing appropriate buildings for
rehousing poor families. Carrick adapted the traditional tenement type – 4-storey
buildings (‘In-line House’ type) with a common stair serving two apartments per
floor – to form a perimeter block with a central courtyard/garden. The prototype
was successful because it used repeated construction elements, had efficient land
utilisation ratios, contributed to a new social and sanitary order, and responded to
the climatic settings (Fig.83).301
The dimensioning of this prototype had a rather more simplified formula than
Cerdá’s in that it established the relationship between courtyard, building heights
and street width; this formula is significant in the design of CCH prototypes (Fig.84).
Based on a municipal regulation that determined that the height of the buildings
should be equal to the width of the streets, a 4-storey perimeter block required
streets 12m wide, because the usual height of a storey was around 3m (10ft). As the
width of the courtyards was regulated to be one and a half times the building
height, by applying the 10m width (30ft) generally utilised in the building prototype,
a 4-storey perimeter block would produce an 18m (60ft) width courtyard within a
38m square perimeter block – 50m, including the streets.302 The minimum width of
the courtyards guaranteed visual privacy between the front windows.
The block’s length and width were adjusted both to achieve effective
ventilation – by designing the axis of the courtyards parallel to the prevailing winds
(SW in Scotland – and to maximise the exposure of the courtyards to the sunlight.
The ideal balance of these two factors was difficult to achieve because, at times, the
street layout had to consider sloppy topographies that forced the streets to follow a
radial design not favourable to the wind direction (Fig.85).303 This balance can be
achieved in subtropical climates by the implementation of ventilation tunnels.304
Nevertheless, some of the new plans were designed for perimeter blocks with
public courtyards served by internal streets, using the traditional English
arrangement of parallel service routes to give double access (front and back:
principal and service) with hierarchically different importance. These internal paths
were accessed by public entrances to the interior of the blocks; in my view, this
blurs the boundary between the public realm and the semi-private realm of the
courtyards.
CCH: twentieth century
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the growth of the new
manufacturing economies spread the urban need to create more accommodation
for the industry workers’ families in Europe and the Americas. Generally
implemented close to the industrial buildings, the housing supply was scarce and
inappropriate. The housing typologies that were produced to meet the quick
demand were diversified. One type was the communal courtyard housing type. It
formed a rectangular block with windows in all the external façades; however, it
was not always served by streets on all sides.305
In Europe, the buildings generally had 2/4-storeys with just one entrance to
the central courtyard; this gave access to the units through external stairs and
galleries, frequently made of iron (Fig.87). Although these courtyards had a reduced
width (4-6m), it was most common for the women to sit in front of the ground floor
units to chat with the neighbours while watching their children play.306 The use of
similar housing types occurred in most of the industrial European cities.
In the Americas, analogous types were found in all industrial cities of the
Portuguese and Spanish colonies; however, in the USA, they were mostly located on
the west coast. In California, the early twentieth century population growth and the
economic recession encouraged builders to look for an affordable, easily built
housing typology. Communal courtyard housing turned out to be the logical answer
to accommodate the immigration of aging retirees and a younger generation
searching for the Hollywood lights in Los Angeles. The lack of amenable public
spaces led to citizens’ perception of the possibility of building their fantasy dreams
around a semi-private void.307
This perception often mirrored the elements of the courtyards of southern
Spain. However, in most cases, the communal yards were no wider than the
European industrial models mentioned above. Besides the main purpose of
facilitating natural light and ventilation, the reduced courtyard served almost
exclusively to provide a landscaped access to the units, and to maintain a level of
privacy commonly guaranteed by an iron gate at the street entrance. These gates
were similar to the ones utilised in the Cordoba courtyards seen in the previous
section (Fig.88).308
In some of the most industrialised cites on the east side of the US, the Garden
City Movement309 led to the re-focusing of attention on courtyards with
surrounding housing, as a sustainable housing solution for the North American
cities. However, such examples were mostly of courtyards with public access, as in
the 1936 Harlem River Houses (Fig.89)310 and the Five Blocks Plan presented by
Clarence Perry to house a thousand families (Fig.90),311 both located in New York.
These utopian housing developments were never built because of the economic,
social, and political issues related to their very large scale.
Nonetheless, the 1933 Hillside Houses in Palmer Shannon, New York (Fig.91)
and the 1928 Phipps Garden Apartments (4/6-storeys) located inside the Sunnyside
Gardens social housing development (Queens), should be mentioned here. The
latter achieved national and international recognition for being a planned
community arranged around landscaped open courtyards.312 The development was
undertaken by the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA), and
constituted a built example of communal courtyard housing where the courtyard
had appropriate dimensioning and adequate planting of varied tress to serve as a
functional community space (Fig.92).313 Also relevant was the use of multiple
vertical stair halls that accessed paired units on each floor to maximise crossventilation.
However, neither of the projects above foresaw the inclusion of ground
floor retail areas as a way to increase the street’s liveability.
Block reform
From the 1880s to the 1940s in Europe, the building block acquired a greater
role in the inner cities as the most important typological component of the city
fabric. The small block dimensions, and the greater number of streets facilitated by
them, allowed for the maximum exploitation of retail on the ground floor.
Accordingly, the size and complexity of the blocks depended on their proximity to
the city core: the bigger blocks that allowed for wider central yards were a greater
distance from the city core, either in new or rebuilt areas of the city’s outskirts. 314
Areas under development adopted the new plans to reform the urban blocks.
As the mild climate of Southern Europe did not require a large amount of sunlight
for urban housing, the courtyards were small and their utilisation as a communal
space was very rare. However, in northern Europe, the urban plans foresaw larger
building blocks, where the central open space was commonly used by the residents
as a semi-private space (e.g., in Vienna, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London,
Frankfurt and Berlin, to name but a few).
Vienna
By 1900, in Vienna, Camillo Sitte published Greenery within the city (which
was included as an appendix in his 1889 seminal book City planning according to
artistic principles).315 Sitte proposed that all the vegetation in a city could be divided
into two categories: the decorative greenery and the sanitary greenery. The latter
would be found in the sheltered interior of large perimeter blocks, away from “the
dust and noise of the streets”.316 The influence of Sitte in Viennese urban planning
and in socialist political trends317 encouraged the construction of five communal
courtyard housing projects (1901) that picked up the typology of the traditional
baroque courtyard (Hof) previously used in institutional buildings and suburban
housing blocks. The 4/5-storey building project by Theodor Bach and Leopold
Simony had 392 apartments arranged around green courtyards with playgrounds
(Fig.93).318
Later (1919-34), the Social Democrats’ policies created a comprehensive
public housing program, which mostly incorporated the Hof typology (63,000
apartments). The Höffen generally provided only a few retail units facing the
streets, but incorporated many communal facilities (laundries, kindergartens,
maternity clinics, health-care offices and libraries) that were served by the public
transportation network.319
It was common to divide the Höffen into multiple courtyards; the first
example was the Fuchsenfeldhof (1922–25) (Fig.94). The size of these courtyards,
and the consequent size of the block, could be credited to the multi-functionality of
both the courtyards and the block, which introduced the quality of mirroring the
public open space (the square/piazza/plaza) inside the private housing
compound.320 However, the size of the blocks and their architectural
monumentality that was recognisable as a distinct building type could also
represent the working class desire for social recognition and power that confronted
the bourgeois Viennese society of the time.321
The most emblematic example of the Hof typology is the Karl Marx Hof – the
symbol of the Red Vienna – a 7-storey affordable apartment compound (1200 units,
35-45m²) designed by Karl Ehn (1927). The Hof is located along a main railway, close
to a train station that provides access to the city and the country, and defines an
entirely new neighbourhood typology. The one kilometre site is only 30% occupied,
and comprises a north-south oriented housing structure framing the widely planted
public courtyards which give access to the street through five monumental
archways (Fig.95).322
These maxi blocks ran counter to the city’s objection to the privatisation of
too much of the public realm. This privatisation was seen to decrease public
permeability and to weaken the relationship between buildings and city. One way
to avoid this was to plan for a balance between public and semi-private courtyard
spaces, as achieved in the Rabenhof (1925-28, 1000 apartments), designed by
Schmid and Aichinger.323 While the spaces created in front of the continuous
building structure are visually related to the surrounding façades, however, the
character of the semi-private spaces becomes unclear given the extended
permeability facilitated by the car accesses and pedestrian passageways (Fig.96).
By 1993, the Women‘s Office of the City of Vienna commissioned the
architects Peretti-Podreka-Prochazka-Ullmann to plan a communal courtyard
housing project to meet the everyday requirements of the Viennese women. The
360 units compound (Frauen-Werk-Stadt I) was carefully planned from the details
of the floor plans to the urban layout, including “a kindergarten, integrated disabled
apartments, a communications centre, six integrated old person‘s apartments as
well as retail units along Donaufelder Strasse” (Fig.112).324
Particular attention was given to the provision of natural light, appropriate
ventilation, and diversity of outdoor views for both the residential units and the
circulation areas. Each building of the complex building block was arranged to frame
a network of green spaces with different characteristics (such as garden courtyards,
play meadows and small plazas, all connected by arborized pedestrian pathways).
The sequence of spaces constitutes stepping-stones that integrate the secondary
structure of the existing urban green structure.325
Three years later (2000), the great success of this project motivated a
competition for a second project for Troststrasse 73–75 (Frauen-Werk-Stadt II). The
winning project by Ganahl-Ifsits-Larch was built by 2004. The building has 140 units,
of which 42 include facilities that enable maximum autonomy for the elderly, albeit
allowing for external professional assistance at the units when required. The ground
level accommodates retail areas, with one barrier-free access to the courtyard
(Fig.113).326 The free choice of communal courtyard typology guaranteed its
appropriateness for the women’s requirements.

Amsterdam
The Hof typology also influenced the planning of the reformation of
Amsterdam’s urban blocks. Of the blocks with large courtyards that are based on
Hendrik Petrus Berlage’s urban plan (1914-40) for Amsterdam, two are selected to
examine here. The first is the Amstel block that was conceived as the general
prototype for the spatial organisation. This type of block allowed different
architects to work side-by-side, all conscious of the urban spaces, the design of the
façades (with special attention given to the block corners generally occupied by
shops), and the building heights (4 floors). These features were all recommended by
the Housing Law of 1901, and influenced by The Amsterdam School of Urban
Architecture that was based on the concept of the block. “The Amstel block is
formed by a continuous perimeter of buildings, which encircle a central – usually
rectangular, unbuilt – space, its width varying between 40 and 45 metres up to 60
metres in some cases.”327
Until 1930 in Amsterdam, the interior of the courtyards comprised a small
central pathway giving access to individual areas of the ground floor dwellings. After
1930, these narrow pathways changed to an enlarged passageway – a semi-private
area. This area was generally gardened, and was located in a central communal
space used by all block residents, albeit with the maintenance and appropriation of
smaller areas for ground floor householders (Fig.97). This appropriation “shown by
the definition of the gardens or of their substitutes (the balconies) through objects,
decoration, paving, flowers etc.”, along with “the narrow alternating projecting
bays, which correspond to the staircases and the kitchens, and wide bays,
corresponding to the balconies”, 328 contributed to personalising and individualising
the dwellings and the internal façade as an intimate block edge.
The example of the Spaardammerburrt planning area (1913-21) was also
chosen for its relevance to this study. Of particular interest is that the new social
housing developments were created adjacent to the new central rail station; the
building blocks were created to accommodate central courtyards; and the three
architects329 involved in individually designing the blocks worked in harmony to
produce a large urban block composed of distinct smaller ones in a collage process.
The overall plan had an adequate urban scale based on the concept of the
Flemish Hof building type assembled around a central public space, which
introduced the intended suggestion of a town inside the metropolis. The front of
the 5-storey blocks had an average length of 100m, but with porticos placed
between the streets that allowed for the crossing of the courtyards (20m). The first
perimeter block built measured 70x85m externally, enclosing a larger courtyard
(55x75m) that was committed to the communal activities of the neighbourhood.
The triangular perimeter block close to the railway included a post office and a
school (Fig.98).330 For the accessibility of the railway, the high density, and the
sense of community created by the
The Piraeus building was constructed at the end of the twentieth century
(1994) in the former Amsterdam docklands at KSMN Island, 3km from the
Amsterdam Central Station. Designed by Hans Kohloff and Christian Rapp, the
Piraeus was built to the edge of one of the blocks (56x170m) as part of a
‘symmetric’ structure of communal courtyard housing separated by a paved small
soccer field space. It is partitioned into two different courtyard structures, which
are not accessible from the street. It frames a public space around a 19th century 3-
storey dock building, and creates a pedestrian passage between the streets.
The western courtyard (25X48m) was designed as an open space for the
residents to enjoy; the eastern courtyard is smaller, and was designed as a garden
visible from the apartments. 331 The volume is modelled from 4-storeys (south) to
9-storeys (north) to guarantee the efficiency of the sun’s penetration into the
courtyards and apartments. The brickwork and the repetitive continuity of the
steel-framed folding windows recall the austere façades of the 19th century
dockland warehouses. Car parking is accommodated underneath the building, with
access from the main street on the north. This reduces the circulation of cars
between the southern façade and the water (Fig.111).332
The Piraeus is a mixed-use building, comprising 18 shops and 304 apartments.
It has a net density of 221dph, and is composed of a large variety of apartment
types (56 different layout plans)333 that assure both diversity of personal choice and
social mix, “and that’s one of the things that makes this building so successful. The
building seems to house all the differences you find in the street, and this variety
makes it part of the street, and a part of the city”.334 The entrances are clearly
marked by their recess intercalating the south shops, and by their verticality and
recess on the north side, where the ground floor is elevated approximately 1.2m to
guarantee the visual privacy of the lower windows. Two large lobby entrances mark
the corners of the block in the south façade. Each vertical access serves two dualaspect
apartments per floor, and the building width between façades is
approximately 16m, allowing for good cross-ventilation.335

Copenhagen
Scandinavian cities followed the block reform trend, while adding the
architectural language of Nordic Classicism. There are many examples of communal
courtyard housing in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen.
Located in the Danish capital and designed by Kay Fisker (1923). However, the
Hornbaekhus is selected here because it is an enduring success as CCH because of
its high quality architecture.336 The motive for this housing development was the
Hornbaekhus Cooperative Housing Association’s will to offer affordable housing in a
democratic political context.
Unique by its rational design, its strict alignment to the street edge, and its
endless repetition of a simple window, this 5-storey building (net density 138dph;
290 apartments; studios, 1BR, 2BR and 3BR) is on a large urban block (75x185m),
framing a green courtyard (55x165m). The ground floor level (35% footprint) is
about 1.2m higher than the street footpath and the courtyard; this guarantees
privacy to the ground floor apartments, allows for natural light and ventilation to
the basement, and accommodates shared spaces for work and entertainment. 337
Retail areas are limited to the corners of the block.
Nonetheless, it is the communal courtyard – designed by G. N. Brandt to offer
a large number of activities – that carries the greatest importance for the resident
community. The large courtyard accommodates a basketball court, a small‐netted
soccer court, sandpits, and BBQ areas. The residents can easily supervise the
children playing in the three differently designed playgrounds, and on the bicycle
pathways (Fig.99).338 “Another factor which contributed to the success of this block
is the way the property was managed: as the private housing cooperation offered
special rights to the tenants, the inhabitants developed a sense of responsibility and

London
Housing in London at the beginning of the twentieth century was mostly
associated with the Garden City Movement that influenced the implementation of
peripheral housing estates built with standalone suburban housing typologies.
Nevertheless, it is important to mention the interventions promoted by the London
County Council (LCC) to provide adequate housing for the working class and reform
slum areas within the city.340
One of these cases was the Bourne Estate in Camden (1905), designed by
Ernest Hadden Parkes and others, as a large 6-storey perimeter block with six slab
buildings (also 6-storeys) located inside the large court, forming north-south
oriented gardened courtyards about 15m wide, where at least one room had a view
to the courtyard.341 As for the Glasgow examples, the block accommodated a car
path along the interior edge of the buildings, and had access from the streets
through monumental public gates resembling the ones in the Vienna Höffen.
The calm of the courtyards balanced the retail along the major streets and
contributed to the development’s liveability (Fig.100). The compound was partially
destroyed during World War II. However, it is now a Camden Grade-II listed housing
estate project for regeneration, commissioned to Mathew Lloyd Architects to
provide two new blocks with 75 units.342 A tennis court and a shared gardened
courtyard were recently built, in recognition of the importance of creating spaces
for communal activities inside the perimeter block.343
Some of the formality and monumentality of the Viennese Höofen could also
be found in the work of G. Topham Forrest in the China Walk Estate in Lambeth
(1934). Here again, the buildings face an internal car path framing a public gardened
courtyard (Fig.101).344 However, the most monumental example of CCH in London
is Dolphin Square in Westminster (1937), designed by Gordon Jeeves and targeting
‘high class’ residents. The residential complex, with 10 stories/1310 apartments
built on a 2.9ha lot, was intended to accommodate 3000 people (428dph).
The overall parti was to build a series of ‘houses’ arranged around a large
courtyard that would provide for relaxation and recreation. For relaxation, the
courtyard provides open gardens, a winter garden, and a palm court; a recreational
centre offers restaurants, bars, a gymnasium, a swimming pool and squash courts.
Other amenities are spread throughout the buildings: a children’s centre and
nursery, library, music room, beauty parlour, laundry depot and various shops and
services (e.g., luggage rooms and a valet service).345 The compound is still
considered a privileged housing estate, as the Dolphin House Serviced Apartments
(ranging from studios to 3br apartments) are in high demand for short/long term
rental. This demonstrates that this communal courtyard housing “is a telling
example of how architectural quality can sustain a long-lasting success” (Fig.102).346

Frankfurt
Although CCH examples can be found in many other German cities such as
Hamburg and Munich, Frankfurt is chosen here for its recognition of communal
courtyard housing as a functional/cultural housing option, even though the city had
been known as a paradise for modern architecture projects. The need for public
housing closer to the new industries (1925-30) generated the development of a
large number of Siedlungen (settlements). These were not intended to be
autonomous villages, but rather, housing districts in a larger industrial context with
a minimum of locally provided facilities.347
Given the number of projects needed for immediate construction, the town
planning office, under the direction of Ernst May, “provided a public service of
architecture and city planning whose duties providing went beyond sketch themes
and development control of projects. The concentration of powers and the means
of implementation in the municipality avoided both the dispersal of responsibilities
and any gaps between different levels of intervention”.348 May was partly
influenced by the Garden City Movement349 initiated (1898) by Ebenezer Howard in
England. However, he also wanted to maintain urban unity, which he did by
avoiding the circular concentration of green areas around the centre, and replacing
them with a green structure of private/semi-private/public gardens, market
gardens, public parks, forests, and rural land radiating from the city centre.350
Three main housing types were used in the developed urban plan: the
Zeilenbau351 surrounded by public green areas; and two variations of the perimeter
block used in Amsterdam – one with a small pathway giving access to large private
gardens, and another with smaller private gardens with a larger semi-private space
between. One example of the latter is the 4-storey perimeter block in Niederrad,
close to the railway. Designed by May to maintain the continuity of the nineteenthcentury
city fabric, the block courtyard has both small areas of private space
appropriated for the ground floor units, and a larger area in the centre of a semiprivate
garden for the use of all block residents (Fig.107).352

Berlin
In Berlin, James Hobrecht expected to transfer part of the public costs of the
streets to private developers, anticipating that they would build the internal streets
in the very large blocks of his 1862 urban plan.353 This publically accessed green
connection between the buildings was similar to the one prosed in Cerdá’s initial
plan (1859). However, in the absence of public legislation to ascribe this
responsibility, the streets were not built and the yards were occupied by sequential
rows of private backyards. This explains the size and the lack of permeability of the
large Berlin blocks.
Perhaps under the influence of Josef Stübben’s concept of the enclosed layout
of urban blocks, Alfred Messel was the first architect in Berlin (1890-1905) to build
perimeter blocks (Blockrandbebauung). By so doing, he attended to the working
class’s expectations of having access to infrastructure, healthcare, education, and
entertainment closer to their homes. Messel acquired two urban blocks to
construct mixed-use 6-storey buildings with large communal courtyards that
integrated restaurants, bakeries, and other shops, as well as services such as
libraries and nurseries to improve both the quality of neighbourhood life and the
sense of community (Fig.103).354
The 6-storey mixed-use buildings of Albert Gessner also became renowned,
not only for the large green courtyards, but also for the generic floor plans and the
generous room heights. These provided for adaptability in the conversion of the
apartments to office spaces (and back) without high remodelling costs. The
apartments in these buildings still achieve high prices in the property market and,
again, serve to corroborate their building typology as a housing model that is
resilient to urban change. Figure 104 shows a ventilated/lightened solution to the
block corner in Gessner’s building at Berlin-Charlottenburg (1906–07).355 This
solution avoided the less acceptable solution of avoiding building in the corner of
the block and thus decreasing the residential density. Positively, the dimensioning
of the apartments areas and ceiling heights foresaw the possibility of converting the
apartments into office spaces, demonstrating an emerging trend for Live-Work.
The Greater Berlin competition (1908–10) raised many experimental solutions
for the urban block. Innovative was the work of Bruno Möhring and Rudolf
Eberstadt (3rd Prize), who proposed a large perimeter block limited to 5-storey
buildings along the main streets. In the interior of the block, however, the height of
the buildings was reduced to 3-storeys around an internal ring road (all buildings
framed long courtyards), and again reduced to 2-storeys around the central green
space. It is also relevant to mention Hermann Jansen’s (1st Prize) proposal for the
concept of the 6-storey uniform façades to constitute ‘long walls’ alongside streets
that were slightly curved to contribute to more attractive architectural street
perspectives (Fig.105).356
The 1920s brought to Berlin the avant-gardism of the Neues Bauen materials
that Erwin Anton Gutkind utilised in his 3/5-storey mixed-use perimeter block
Sonnenhof in Berlin-Lichtenberg. Access to the 266 apartments was through the
courtyard, where a nursery separated the two different landscaped spaces
(Fig.106).357
By 1984 – following the tradition of architectural international exhibitions
(1910, 1931 and 1957) and the 1977 proposal of Josef Paul Kleihues – the
Parliament of West Berlin promoted the International Building Exposition 1987 (IBA,
Internationale Bauausstellung) with the theme ‘The inner city as a place to live’ (Die
innerstadt als Hohnort). With the aim of celebrating Berlin’s 750th anniversary and
being the catalyst for a change in the city’s image, international architects were
invited to submit plans for 8500 housing units (3000 new/5500 renovated) for the
expected demand of the new capital of the German Democratic Republic after the
city’s administrative union (1989).358
Led by Kleihues and created for the purpose, Berlin’s New Building Section
acted as a statutory authority mediating both the constraints of the
housing/planning authorities and the interventions of IBA. Developers had to
respond to a project already defined by the city planners in terms of the specific
criteria related to the building and its future tenants: IBA's preliminary building
design, cost estimates, and subsidy level. Their responses took the form of financial
proposals. Successful proposals promised the highest quality of construction and
guaranteed the lowest possible rent levels. At IBA's suggestion, the city selected
subsidy levels that favoured those groups most in need of housing, and respected
the idea of a mixed-income community.359
IBA intervention in commercial spaces was limited to the ground level of the
housing projects. The renovation of older neighbourhoods had to subscribe to IBA’s
conservative approach to block plans that recommended the preservation of the
previous urban plans, the existing building heights, and traces of historical
architecture. The final architectural and urban design results were very favourable
for the city image and its integration with the eastern size as a new capital of the
German Democratic Republic in 1989.360
Relevant for this inquiry was “the development of a communal identity among
the residents”.361 This was made possible by changes to the design of the communal
courtyards, which enabled them to be used as semi-private rather than public
spaces. However, some of the courtyards were clearly abandoned, and public
access sometimes occurred, because the working class residents (with limited
resources) could not maintain them.362 IBA’s democratic intention to provide public
access and block permeability through the courtyards was appropriate, given the
size of the perimeter blocks. However, this strategy led to a lack of differentiation
between the res publica and the res privata363 and, consequently, to the loss of
clear legibility of the public realm and the “impoverishing of the urban spatial
morphology”.364

Tabula rasa developments


Nowa Huta
After World War II, countries under the direct influence of the Soviet Union
created a new city model based on socialist concepts, “usually built to accomplish a
single specific purpose: to house the workers of a large steel complex or mine, to
relieve congestion in an adjacent industrial area, or to serve as a regional
administrative center”. Examples are “Nowa Huta and Nowe Tychy in Poland,
Sztalinvaros in Hungary, Dimitrovgrad and the new resort cities along the Black Sea
in Bulgaria, Havirov and Vorosilov in Czechoslovakia, Titograd and Velenje in
Yugoslavia.”365
Nowa Huta was built to symbolise the essence of the socialist urban model –
an ideal socialist industrial city using a structure of communal courtyard housing for
the workers of the first steel plant built in Poland, the Lenin Steelworks (Huta
imiena Lenina – HiL). The chosen site for the city’s location was midway between
the main road and the railways connecting Ukraine to the industrial Silesia region in
Poland. It was positioned 7km northeast of the city of Cracow, in an effort to
change the image of the bourgeois Cracow to that of a working-class city, and thus
replacing socialist with market practices.366
Accordingly, Nowa Huta’s urban plan was designed by a team led by Tadeusz
Rembiesa on a tabula rasa basis. It was to be built in accordance with a six-year
construction strategy (1949-55), and was to house 200 000 people. The plan is
reminiscent of some Renaissance/Baroque cities where the main streets radiate
from the Central Square, and are framed by colonnaded buildings on three sides. It
also copied the 1920’s American concept of ‘neighbourhood units’ that was
similarly used in England at that time.367
The 3/7-storey residential clusters were built around communal courtyards,
generally with the minimum width of around 20m, and with gates allowing for
public access from/to the allée type avenues. This macro approach to communal
courtyard housing represented the formal application of the socialist rules for a
compact housing compound which, although more economical for the street
network, was planned to promote the interaction of residents in the gardened
spaces, to create a stronger socialist community, and to facilitate the supervision of
children (Fig.108).368 Communal facilities (social, cultural, and sporting) were
provided by the Lenin Steelworks and other facilities such as grocery stores,
pharmacies, and day-care centres were located in the centre of each
neighbourhood.369 This system of providing basic facilities near the workplace was
similar to the one applied in the Chinese danway.370
As 80% of Nowa Huta’s inhabitants were of rural origin, their adaptation to
the new housing concept was difficult. The socialist planners did not provide a
distinct rural-like area within the new housing development to serve as a temporary
reception location, or to allow the newcomer to adjust progressively to the urban
lifestyle, albeit while maintaining some rural ways. Nor did the socialist system
provide for the appropriation of private areas for the ground floor households,
because that would be counter to the principle of equal housing conditions.371
These, in my opinion, were significant shortcomings in the socialist planning of
Nowa Huta’s CCH.
Furthermore, the Socialist planners were not successful in restraining the
population growth in Nowa Huta. This caused the equalisation of housing space (per
capita) to decrease, and the standardised small unit space and sanitation (maximum
50m²) soon became inadequate for the workers’ family growth. In addition, the
standardisation of faulty construction methods (based on the use of early pre-fab
concrete technology) limited the possibility of changing the apartment floor plans.
As in other socialist cities, larger families were housed “in units clustered together
adjacent to service areas for the families”.372 Not surprisingly, this became an
obstacle “to regulate in a socially correct way the standard of satisfaction of housing
needs.”373 Therefore, the lack of vision in providing floor plans that could
accommodate family growth was a huge deficiency in the CCH planning.
With the political and economic changes in the following decades,374 Nowa
Huta, which was planned and created to be an independent town, has inevitably
become a suburb of the liveable Cracow, where many of the former HTS workers
found new jobs. Although it has lost most of the leisure and market spaces earlier
supplied by the steelworks, the neighbourhoods have maintained the basic central
facilities previously implemented by the original plan.
A recent ethnographic research study shows that “residents praise the
accessibility of all essential services as well as the amount of green space in the
district”,375 and reject moving for “socialist-era housing neighborhoods (especially
those built in the 1960s and 1970s, characterized by high-rise buildings made from
pre-fabricated concrete), are popularly perceived as ugly and undesirable places to
live, both because of their association with the previous regime and because
subsequent postsocialist governments have not adequately kept up the existing
housing stock”.376 The study further indicates that although Nowa Huta has been
seen since the 1950s “as a marginal part of Cracow, commonly associated with
crime, especially soccer-related violence … many Nowa Huta residents in fact see
their district as a good place to live”. 377
Although the development of the road connecting with Cracow has brought
some new amenities closer to the town, there is a high demand for more places to
eat, drink, and socialise. Accordingly, the current district governments are working
together to have the town listed as a UNESCO heritage site based on its
architectural and urban design merits.378 They expect that this distinction will make
a large contribution to the valuation of the town identity, and attract tourism
benefits as a catalyst for the development of local retail ventures, and the
consequent street liveability.
Runcorn Southgate
Not as successful was the public courtyard housing model designed later by
James Stirling at Southgate at Runcorn New Town, sited between Liverpool and
Manchester (finished 1976). The town was planned as part of the post-1961 thirdgeneration
New Towns strategy, counting on an innovative mass transit system. The
5-storey estate (1500-unit/6000-resident) allocated one third of its apartments to
two or three persons, another third to maisonettes for four or five, and another
third to maisonettes for five or six. The apartments were dispersed evenly
throughout the buildings to avoid the concentration of specific groups (e.g., social
and/or age groups).380
Ground floor houses were planned for larger families (5-6 people), with
bedrooms on the floor above, and dinning/living areas facing private gardens.
Maisonettes had access to the elevated pathways, living rooms with large balconies
facing the courtyards, and bedrooms above. Smaller apartments (for 2/3 people)
were on the top floors. The terraced apartments’ layout permitted crossventilation,
and had all living rooms oriented to south or west, facing the
courtyards.
The buildings accommodated the elevated walkways on the street sides (that
is, the south and east); streets were laid out in a cul-de-sac system to prevent noisy
through-traffic; and views of the cars and car parking were screened by street trees
and landscaped banks. The street grid was planned to access only two sides of the
square courtyards (91.44m - 300ft), which had their dimensions based on
precedents such as the squares in Bath and Edinburgh in the 18th century

The housing model was both recognised382 and criticised383 by Stirling’s peers.
Independently of the diverse architectural criticism, the housing model was not
accepted by residents either. Since the first constructions in the 1970s, the
maisonettes were clearly unpopular for their lack of backyards and their
overshadowing by the upper apartments. This criticism led Stirling to add private
gardens to the ground floor ‘houses’ for the final phase. General criticism was
directed at the commissioning Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
for not revising the earlier phases according to the residents’ opinions, the technical
issues related to the buildings’ poor insulation, and the private costs of the district
heating system.384
Community criticism was largely directed at architectural elements such as
the elevated pathways, the windows (either round or with round corners), and the
coloured GRP (glass-reinforced plastic). The residents stated their displeasure at
living inside ‘washing machines’385, and named the housing development
‘Legoland’. Margaret Davies, chairperson of the residents' association, stated that
"the architect either had a brainstorm or was suffering from acute depression”.386
However, the system of courtyard spaces pleased the majority of the residents
(Fig.110).387
Runcorn Southgate failed for the same reasons that the socialist Nowa Huta
did: the use of unappropriated technology (that is, unchangeable concrete panel
divisions); the imposition of a new housing typology without considering
community habits and preferences; the insufficient provision of small areas of
private gardens; and a limited supply of mixed-use areas. However, the communal
courtyards were praised by the majority of residents in both urban development
cases.

Arcades-du-Lac
Another example of post-modern housing that uses communal courtyards, is
the Arcades-du-Lac, a contemporaneous development (1972) designed by Ricardo
Bofill, and located in the new town of Montigny le Bretonneux, approximately 2km
from the town centre and the railway station (7km from Versailles and 30km from
the centre of Paris). The housing structure is divided into two areas. One borders
the adjacent artificial lake and forms communal courtyards as “an ironic turning
around of … the urban, social utopian ideal of the last century, a Versailles for the
masses”.388 The other, the ‘viaduct houses’, is built over the water as a neo-roman
aqueduct, double-imaged by its artificial lake reflection.389
“Bofill's aim was to instill a sense of collective civic pride by his historical
borrowings. He sought to recall a past and to recontextualize it in a new urban
setting with a system of proportions and textures”.390 Reducing the construction
costs with an elaborate rationalisation that utilised sophisticated pre-fab
techniques, Bofill was concerned with both the use of classicist architectural
elements (such as columns, pediments, and cornices),391 and the visual effect of the
concrete panels. These were “tinted several shades of earthy brown and alternated
with brown ceramics, in an attempt to tune into the vernacular of the French street,
to avoid the disruptive effect of those grey, blank modernist structures”. 392
However, the use of large pre-fab panels constrained the internal distribution of
space, and “some of the apartments leave a great deal to be desired in terms of
convenient internal planning”.393
Nonetheless, both the fact that people can go down to the underground
parking directly from their apartments, and the decision to avoid the inclusion of
bars, restaurants, and shops to create a more ‘elitist’ community contributes to the
permanent emptiness of the public streets, which are generally used only by
visitors.394 While Boffill had a greater understanding of pre-fab concrete technology
(of both its joinery and visual effects) in the Arcades-du-Lac, he did not overcome its
lack of flexibility with respect to internal wall changes, as it was a shortcoming also
in Runcon and Nowa Huta. A positive aspect, however, was the choice of 4-storey
buildings to frame the courtyards; this was proved by Martin and March to be the
most efficient way to provide sun exposure in the rooms during the winter.395
Bofill considered the residents’ preferences in providing a discriminative CCH
that fails to provide for liveability both in the semi-private courtyard spaces and in
the public open spaces, because its design is incompatible with extended outdoor
activities. He designed a car-dependable model distant from workplaces and
amenities, thus targeting an exclusive society. This is clearly a model to avoid in
designing CCH for social diversity, liveability and sustainability.

Tallet 8 (8 House)
Already built in the 21st century (2006-2010), the 8 House (Tallet 8) was
designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). Located in Richard Mortensens Vej, a
new planned expansion of Orestad, 7km south from the centre of Copenhagen, the
building is easily accessed by bicycle and public transportation (the new mini-metro
takes 12min to Copenhagen Central Station, and 10min to the airport). It is a mixeduse
building (475 dwellings: town houses/apartments/penthouses + 10 000m²
office space + retail)396 framing two courtyards that form a stylised footprint of the
number 8, with the main axis oriented south-north. The northern courtyard is
bound by office spaces; hence, the building heights around it purposely favour the
sun penetration on the higher internal façades only. The larger southern courtyard
was planned as a more communal space, with large sun exposure on the ground
(Fig.114).
Even though the courtyards can be publically accessed, this example was
chosen because it attempts to produce a vertical townhouse village accessible by
ramped pedestrian/cycling pathways. Also important are the front yards of these
dwellings (170), private appropriations of space that allow for individualization of
furniture and choice of plants for the provided planters.
Tallet 8 is an exemplary housing proposal. It has been recognised by many
awards, including the 2012 AIA Institute Honor Award for Architecture. The award
jury commented: “People really ‘live’ in this newly created neighborhood with
shopping, restaurants, an art gallery, office facilities, childcare, educational facilities
and the sound of children playing. This is a complex and exemplary project of a new
typology.”
Summary: CCH precedents
The examples described above include features relevant to this study.
Specifically, this summary now highlights (in list format, annotated with my
comments) the features that are most important to the components (buildings,
courtyards, blocks and streets) of the urban design prototypes.